Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 3:23

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,

23. began to be about thirty years of age ] Rather, was about thirty years of age on beginning ( His work). So it was understood by Tyndale, but the E. V. followed Cranmer, and the Geneva. The translation of our E.V. is, however, ungrammatical, and a strange expression to which no parallel can be adduced. The word archomenos, standing absolutely for ‘when he began his ministry,’ is explained by the extreme prominency of this beginning in the thought of St Luke (see Act 1:1; Act 1:22), and his desire to fix it with accuracy. The age of 30 was that at which a Levite might enter on his full services (Num 4:3; Num 4:47), and the age at which Joseph had stood before Pharaoh (Gen 41:46), and at which David had begun to reign (2Sa 5:4), and at which scribes were allowed to teach.

as was supposed ] “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” Mat 13:55; Joh 6:42.

On the genealogy which follows, and its relations to that in the Gospel of St Matthew, many volumes have been written, but in the Excursus I have endeavoured to condense all that is most important on the subject, and to give those conclusions which are now being accepted by the most careful scholars. See Excursus II., The genealogies of Jesus in St Matthew and St Luke.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Jesus began to be … – This was the age at which the priests entered on their office, Num 4:3, Num 4:47; but it is not evident that Jesus had any reference to that in delaying his work to his thirtieth year. He was not subjected to the Levitical law in regard to the priesthood, and it does not appear that prophets and teachers did not commence their work before that age.

As was supposed – As was commonly thought, or perhaps being legally reckoned as his son.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Luk 3:23; Luk 3:38

Which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God

Genealogies

As we glance through the list of names given in these chapters (Mat 1:1-25.

and Luk 3:1-38.), we see that few could claim a higher descent than could the carpenter Joseph and the gentle woman to whom he was espoused. They were both lineally descended from the ancient kings of the proud tribe of Judah–from Solomon and David–and, going further back, from the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–from Shorn, from Seth, from Adam. Their family tree in one place covered a space of 2,000 years; in another of more than 4,000 years. Yet they were poor, humble, unrecognized. In the lapse of time there are fluctuations and undulations. While some families have their flows, others have their ebbs. While some rise in wealth and consequent honour, others glide into poverty and insignificance. The old stock wears out, the new tree takes its place. The world, constituted as it is, recognizes lineage only when it is accompanied by wealth. By itself it is a voice from the past, and nothing more. Could we read the history of mens lives, and trace their descent, we should have plenty of examples of this. We see it in our own times. Examples crowd on us without difficulty. It is not long since the gallant son of an emperor died as a simple soldier in the British uniform. It is asserted that the last scion of a kingly race, sprung from the warrior Cid, eked out a miserable existence–neglected, half-starved–in London, where he died a few years ago.The descendants of one of the most remarkable men of the sixteenth century are a poor peasant family in a Midland County to-day–decent folk enough, but certainly unhonoured and unsung. Such was the case with the gentle Mary of Nazareth. Some people boast of their patrician birth. The boasting, at least, confers no merit upon them. If Mary wished, she might with reason have boasted too. Though a peasant, she sprang from kings; though poor, her ancestors were wealthy; though humble, one of her forefathers was the wisest of men. But her claim to honour came not from the past–it was reflected back from the future. It was not due to the long line of an unbroken pedigree, but from Him she was to bear With the exception of the two of our Lord, there are no genealogies in the New Testament, whereas there are several in the Old Testament. Moreover, St. Paul, himself descended from Jacobs youngest son, wrote this counsel to Timothy, Neither give heed to endless genealogies, and to Titus, Avoid foolish question and genealogies for they are unprofitable and vain. Is there no significance in this? Family records were scrupulously guarded under Judaism; they were ignored, even condemned, under Christianity. Why so? Because Christianitys principle sweeps away all walls of partition, blots out all records, tears down all red lines which may separate man from man. Christianity teaches that each and every man, whoever he be, is a brother; and each and every woman a sister. Christianity abrogates and denounces whatever tends to pride, or assumption, or superciliousness, or self-conceit. It teaches that in Gods sight, prince and beggar, patrician and peasant, are on the same level. It teaches gentleness and thoughtfulness and politeness towards all. It teaches that the highest claim to descent is to be a true child of God; the highest society, true membership with Christ; the highest inheritance, that which we have if we only keep it–the kingdom of heaven. (C. E. Drought, M. A.)

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke

In the first Gospel the genealogy of Jesus is placed at the very beginning of the narrative. This is easily explained. From the point of view indicated by theocratic forms, scriptural antecedents, and, if we may so express it, Jewish etiquette, the Messiah was to be a descendant of David and Abraham (Mat 1:1.) This relationship was the sine qua non of His civil status. It is not so easy to understand why Luke thought he must give the genealogy of Jesus, and why he places it just here, between the baptism and the temptation. Perhaps, if we bear in mind the obscurity in which, to the Greeks, the origin of mankind was hidden, and the absurd fables current among them about autochthonic nations, we shall see how interesting any document would be to them, which, following the track of actual names, went back to the first father of the race. Lukes intention would thus be very nearly the same as Pauls, when he said at Athens (Act 17:26), God hath made of one blood the whole human race. But from a strictly religious point of view, this genealogy possessed still greater importance. In carrying it back not only, as Matthew does, as far as Abraham, but even to Adam, Luke lays the foundation of that universality of redemption which is to be one of the characteristic features of the picture he is about to draw. In this way he places in close and indissoluble connection the imperfect image created in Adam which reappears in every man, and his perfect image realized in Christ which is to be reproduced in all men. But why does Luke place this document here? Because now Jesus enters personally on the scene to commence His proper work. With the baptism, the obscurity in which He has lived until now passes away; He now appears detached from the circle of persons who have hitherto surrounded Him and acted as His patrons–viz., His parents and the forerunner. He henceforth becomes the He (verse 23), the principal personage of the narrative. This is the moment which very properly appears to the author most suitable for giving His genealogy. The genealogy of Moses, in the Exodus, is placed in the same way, not at the opening of his biography, but at the moment when he appears on the stage of history, when he presents himself before Pharaoh. In crossing the threshold of this new era, the sacred historian casts a general glance over the period which thus reaches its close, and sums it up in this document, which might be called the mortuary register of the earlier humanity. There is, further, a difference of form between the two genealogies. Matthew comes down, while Luke ascends the stream of generations. Perhaps this difference of method depends on the difference of religious position between the Jews and the Greeks. The Jew, finding the basis of his thought in a revelation, proceeds synthetically from cause to effect; the Greek, possessing nothing beyond the fact, analyzes it, that he may proceed from effect to cause. But this difference depends more probably still on another circumstance. Every official genealogical register must present the descending form; for individuals are only inscribed in it as they are born. The ascending form of genealogy can only he that of a private instrument, drawn up from the public document with a view to the particular individual whose name serves as the starting-point of the whole list. It follows that in Matthew we have the exact copy of the official register; while Luke gives us a document extracted from the public records, and compiled with a view to the person with whom the genealogy commences. (F. Godet, D. D.)

The double genealogies of Christ as the Son of David

The general facts are these–

1. The genealogy in St. Matthew descends from Abraham to Jesus, in accordance with his object in writing mainly for the Jews; whereas St. Lukes ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, in accordance with his object in writing for the world in general.

2. The generations are introduced in St. Matthew by the word begat; in St. Luke by the genitive with the ellipse of son.

3. Between David and Zerubbabel St. Matthew gives only fifteen names, but St. Luke twenty-one; and they are all different except that of Shealtiel (Salathiel).

4. Between Zerubbabel and Joseph St. Matthew gives only nine generations, but St. Luke seventeen; and all the names are different. The difficulty as to the number of the generations is not serious. It is a matter of daily experience that the number of generations in one line often increases far more rapidly than that in another. Moreover the discrepancies in these two lists may all be accounted for by noticing that Matthew adopts the common Jewish plan of an arbitrary numerical division into tesseradecads. When this system was adopted, whole generations were freely omitted, for the sake of preserving the symmetry, provided that the fact of the succession remained undoubted (cf. Ezr 7:1-5 with 1Ch 6:3-15). The difficulty as to the dissimilarity of names will of course only affect the two steps of the genealogies at which they begin to diverge, before they again coalesce in the names of Shealtiel and of Joseph. A single adoption, and a single levirate marriage, account for the apparent discrepancies. St. Matthew gives the legal descent through a line of kings descended from Solomon–the jus successionis; St. Luke the natural descent–the jus sanguinis. St. Matthews is a royal, St. Lukes a natural pedigree. (Archdeacon Farrar.)

Our Lords descent

1. These verses completely establish that essential point in the evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus, viz., His descent from David, Judah, and Abraham. Let this confirm our faith in His Divine mission; let us give our careful attention and firm adherence to the exact and particular doctrines which He teaches; and show a ready obedience to the precepts which He enjoins.

2. Among the ancestors of our Lord, there are found persons of various descriptions and characters.

(1) Though His line frequently runs through the elder brother, it also often runs through a younger brother of the family, which shows that God follows His own sovereign will, and in the course of His providence often makes the first last and the last first, putting down the great and exalting those of low degree.

(2) In this genealogy, too, are found some who were originally Gentiles, and strangers to the covenants of promise, as Rahab and Ruth; a circumstance which gave early proof that in Jesus Christ there was to be neither Greek nor Jew, and that the blessings of His salvation were to be proposed to every nation under heaven.

(3) In His pedigree there are found some individuals who were of abandoned character, and yet He was not thereby disgraced.

(4) It shows that grace does not run through families, but is the special gift of God to individuals.

(5) Our Lords condescension in accepting such a descent.

3. A glance at these generations which have passed away, naturally suggests a variety of reflections–plaintive, humble, and instructive.

(1) All must die.

(2) The sad consequences of sin.

(3) The vanity of the world. Some few of these obtained celebrity, but how little it avails them now! Of how many the memory, and even the name, has utterly perished! How miserable are they who have no name but that which is written in the earth, and no portion but for this life I Let us seek to gain a more substantial honour. (James Foote, M. A.)

A binding corner-stone

See what a binding corner-stone the Lord Jesus is, knitting together not man to man only, Gentiles with Jews, but man with God also; and that not by a personal union only, which He hath perfected in Himself, but by a spiritual union also by which He unites all the members of His mystical body in a blessed peace and fellowship with God; and this hath He now begun, and shall perfect in the end. (Bishop Cowper.)

From Christ according to the Spirit

Then our instruction is, that though neither our names nor our fathers, be in the catalogue of Christs progenitors; yet if we be in the roll of His children and brethren, we shall have comfort sufficient: though He be not come of us according to the flesh, if we be come from Him, according to the Spirit, as His sons and daughters by regeneration, we shall be blessed in Him, even as they were. (Bishop Cowper.)

The genealogical table

A mournful yet instructive study. Take a few of the reflections arising from such a study.

1. Every individual life belongs to the great whole–the solemn ever-rolling stream of human being. No man liveth unto himself; we transmit power, weakness, even depravity.

2. Though the individual dies, the race moves on; no one being is essential to the continuance of the world; the greatest dies, yet the world hardly misses the service of his industrious hand; the most eloquent ceases his speech, yet the roar in the living air is none the less.

3. How few men of surpassing reputation there have ever been, considering the innumerable hosts of human generations; how few of these names do we know anything about–only one here and there, as David, Abraham, Enoch; but of the mass, who knows anything?

4. Yet there may be great usefulness where there is no renown; our names will perish when we cease to live, yet within the limits of our day, how much good may we do!

5. Even though a great succession may seem to be interrupted, or to have died cut, it may revive again. In this table we come to very low points, yet how the life rises, how the glory returns! Cast down, but not destroyed. It is often thus with the spiritual seed of the Messiah, yet there has ever been a seed to serve Him, and a remnant to uphold the honour of His name. (J. Parker, D. D.)

The genealogy of Christ

We learn:

I. GODS FIDELITY TO HIS PROMISE.

II. THE ETERNAL NEVER WORKS HURRIEDLY.

III. THE HUMAN RACE IS VERY CLOSELY INTERRELATED.

IV. THE UNIVERSALITY OF DEATH.

V. THE ALL-INCLUSIVENESS OF CHRISTS MISSION.

VI. CHRIST THE APEX OF THIS PYRAMID AND THE CROWN AND GLORY OF THE RACE. (J. Ossian Davies.)

Sacred and secular Jewish names

The following possible explanation of the divergencies between the two genealogies of our Lord is deserving of consideration. The Jews, like other nations, gave more than one name to each individual. The life of a Jew was essentially twofold: he was a member of a civil state, and he was at the same time a member of a theocracy; his life was both political and religious. This distinction seems to have been preserved in the giving of names. Traces of the double name are found throughout the course of Scripture history. It is highly probable that the sacred name imposed at birth would be entered in a different list from the common name by which a man was known in his civil relationships. The conclusion to which we are brought is that we have before us two such registers, one drawn from public, and the other from private sources; or, as is conjectured above, one from a civil genealogy, the other from writings laid up in the Temple. In support of this view, we may note that in the genealogy in Luke–the evangelist whose opening chapters show a close familiarity with the interior of the Temple, and what took place there–the names appear to have a sacred character. Even an English reader may remark at a glance the different aspect of the two lists. That in Luke contains, with striking frequency, the familiar names of distinguished patriarchs, prophets, and priests, and thus confirms the impression that his genealogy, rather than that of a Matthew, is of a purely religious character. This hypothesis receives a remarkable confirmation by a comparison of the dates of the two lists with the dates of the first building, the destruction, and the second building of the Temple. What, then, is the relation between the two genealogies before Solomons time, when there was no Temple? and during the lives of Salathiel and Zorobabel, who flourished at the time of the Babylonish captivity, when again, for seventy years, there was no Temple? It is precisely at these periods that only one list exists. The divergence in Lukes genealogy from that of Matthew is exactly coincident with the periods during which the Temple was standing. What explanation of this striking fact can be more natural than that at the point where the two genealogies unite there was but one list to refer to, and that the absence of entries in the sacred register required it to be supplemented by a reference to the state chronicles? (Biblical things not generally known.)

Luke carefully guards against the notion of this being the real descent, by introducing the words as was supposed; it was the legal descent, Joseph being legally the Lords father; and from Joseph as the supposed father, St. Luke carries up the pedigree to the commencement of all things, that is, the creation of the man. Matthew brings down the descent from Abraham; Luke carries it up to Adam and so to God; and as the descent from Abraham was the most important for those children of Abraham who were looking for the fulfilment of the promises made to their forefathers, so the possibility of ascending to Adam and to God was the most important fact for the race of mankind at large, who had all fallen in Adam, and all looked for redemption through Christ. Dry as the long list of names in Luke may seem, it may truly be said that no passage of Scripture contains more of the essence of the gospel; Jesus is the true second Adam, because He is linked with the first; Jesus and Adam are the two heads of the human race, and they are both of them sons of God, Adam by creation, Jesus Christ by eternal generation; and so it may be said that the genealogical chain, by which Luke linked the first Adam and the second Adam together, is that chain upon which the redemption of mankind and all human hopes depend. (Bishop Harvey Goodwin.)

Why have we Josephs genealogy, not Marys?

If Josephs genealogy, as presented in either of the Gospels, determines our Lords birth as the lineal descendant of David, and the legal heir to the throne, his genealogy is all-important; while that of Mary, as it would not, according to Hebrew law, have decided the question of descent, would have been invalid as a document. Familia matris nonfamilia is an ancient maxim among the Jews, and it has Divine sanction (see Num 1:26). The law that descent is reckoned on the fathers side only, Filius sequitur patrem–a law recognized by all civilized nations–is not contradicted by the one or two exceptional instances in which the name of a womans ancestor was adopted by her husband and transmitted to her offspring (Num 32:41; comp. 1Ch 2:21-23; Ezr 2:61). A descent of this kind was not counted a true descent in any case in which the genealogy was sought (see Ezr 2:62), and gave no legal claim. Joseph is distinctly honoured, in the Scripture, with the recognition of his legal parentage of Jesus. (G. W. Butler, D. D.)

The Divine root of the human pedigree

The pedigree of our Lord, as given by the Evangelist of the Gentiles, ends with a wonderful leap, a leap from earth to heaven. Noah was the son of Lamech, &c., &e. Enos was the son of Seth, Seth was the son of Adam, Adam was the son of–God. There is no bolder word in Scripture, none that strikes us with a deeper surprise and awe. Most of us have, doubtless, wondered at times why, when space was so valuable, Luke should have inserted in his Gospel this barren list of names. But the pedigree is of immense value, if for nothing else, yet for this, that it connects the second Adam with the first, that it places a son of God at either end of the list; that it makes us out to be the children of God both by nature and by grace, by birth and by second birth. For, of course, if Adam was the son of God, we are all the children of God, since we are all children of Adam; there is a Divine element in our nature as well as a human element, a capacity for life and holiness as well as a liability to sin and death. In the light of our text–

I. EVEN THE MOST PERPLEXING FACTS OF OUR INWARD EXPERIENCE GROW A LITTLE MORE CLEAR TO US. Double or divided nature of which every man is conscious. In worst of men something good; something bad even in best. That which is good we derive from God, our true Father, the sole source and fountain of good; that which is evil in us we inherit not from Adam only, but from all our earthly parents.

II. SO DOES THE DEEPEST TEACHING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BECOME CLEARER TO US: the philosophy which underlies the teaching of our Lord and of the two greatest of His interpreters, St. Paul and St. John. That teaching may be briefly summed up thus: Christ is the Eternal Word by whom all things were created, by whom therefore Adam, or man, was created. Hence Christ is, as St. Paul calls Him, the Head of every man. It is in Him that we live and move and have our being. Then, too, we begin to understand all those difficult and perplexing passages in the writings of St. Paul, which declare our essential oneness with Christ. The second Adam was before the first Adam, and called Him into being. Hence He could die for all. Hence He lives for all, and we all live in and by Him. In short, all the sentences of the New Testament, which have sounded most mystical and obscure, and which may have seemed too good to be literally true, become true and plain to us so soon as we understand that Adam was the son of God, and that Adam was made by Him without whom nothing was made, and apart from whom nothing can subsist.

III. THE PRACTICAL OUTCOME OF THESE THOUGHTS IS MOST WELCOME AND MOST PRECIOUS to as many of us as love life and desire to see good. For, however weak and sinful we may be, we have not, as we sometimes fear, to persuade God to enter into a fatherly relation to us, and to begin to love us. He is our Father; He does love us. Nor have we, as we still oftener fear, to ask Him to redeem us from the yoke and tyranny of our sins. He has redeemed both us and all men, once for all, by the incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ our Maker, our Head, and therefore our Representative. We have only to recognize existing and accomplished facts. We bare only to believe that He is our Father, has been our Father ever since we had any being, and can never cease to be our Father. We have only to accept the salvation He has wrought, and which stands waiting for us and urging itself upon us. There need be, there can be, no change in God, or in the Son of God; it is we in whom a change is wanted. They are, they have done, they are doing, all that we can desire them to be or do. And so soon as we know that, and believe it, we shall become all that we desire to be, and receive all that we long to enjoy. (S. Cox, D. D.)

The two genealogies of Jesus Christ

And yet in these very genealogies of Jesus Christ there are hinted profound truths well worthy of our most serious consideration. Let us rapidly glance at some of them.

I. And, first, THE FACT THAT THERE IS ANY GENEALOGY AT ALL IS SIGNIFICANT. For it is conceivable that the Son of God might have descended into the world an unborn Gabriel, or a full-grown, unmothered Adam. The Word has indeed become flesh, bone of our bones and flesh of our flesh.

II. Again, observe THE PEDIGREE ITSELF. How many and striking its vicissitudes! How thrilling some of its names! How momentous some of the events it recalls! Glance for a moment at some of these peculiarities. For example, how profound the obscurity and hinted shame which rested over Bethlehems manger, as suggested by the evangelists comment: Being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph. How homely His descent, as indicated by the fact that eighteen of His immediate ancestors are unknown except by name! How illustrious His descent, as indicated in such names as Zerubbabel, Josiah, Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Solomon, David, Boaz, Jacob, Abraham, Noab, Enoch, Seth, Adam! What dark scenes in Hebrew history are recalled by such names as Jehoiachin, Amon, Manasseh, Ahaz, Jehoram, Rehoboam, Bathsheba, Tamar! How thrilling the vicissitudes of Davids line, as vibrating in the stories of Rehoboam, Joash, Esther, the Maccabees, the Virgin Mary! Verily, the genealogy of Jesus Christ is a book of startling providences. And it is a significant fact that, since the birth of the Divine Man, the Davidic pedigree has been hopelessly lost, so that none but Jesus of Bethlehem can claim from the Hebrew genealogical tables to be Davids promised Son, and so Davids Lord, even Jehovahs very Christ. But Jesus Christ was not only the Son of David and the Son of Abraham, He was also the Son of Adam even that seed of the woman who, as had been foretold by the gates of Eden, would crush the serpents head. Thus, the genealogy of Jesus Christ includes all extremes and all vicissitudes, so that he is in very truth the Son of man. And not only is He the Son of man, He is also the Son of God.

III. Lastly, THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST IS THE OLDEST IN THE WORLD. Men think it a great thing to have an ancient lineage. But here is a lineage which is older than that of William of Normandy, or Romulus, or Priam, or Nimrod, or Adam. Verily, His goings forth have been from of old–from the days of eternity. Verily, here is the Ancient of Days. Ah! the true heraldry is the device of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; the true shield is the crimson escutcheon of the Cross. Dost thou, O friend, belong to the lineage of Jesus Christ? If so, thy name has already been entered in the heavenly register, even the Lambs roll of life. Live, then, worthily of thy sonship. (G. D. Beardman.)

Thoughts

I. THERE IS MUCH IN GOOD LINEAGE. Virtues and vices are borne along on the current of blood from generation to generation. Such is the energy of moral qualities that they may be modified but rarely eradicated by transmission from parent to child. As surely as the blood of the racer tells in its fleet-footed offspring, the virtues and vices of David are felt down the line of his generation.

II. SIN HAS TAINTED THE BLOOD OF THE BEST RACES OF MEN, and frequently makes itself manifest. All have sinned and have come short of the glory of God. There is no exception.

III. GODS GRACE CAN FLOW THROUGH VERY CROOKED HUMAN CHANNELS. Men who are spiritually dwarfed and ill-shaped can be made, in Gods providence, to help along very strait principles and policies. God makes manifest His great wisdom and power by the vastness of the results He works out through weak human instrumentalities. What could be meaner and more cruel than the murder of Uriah by David? Yet God made the wife of this murdered man the channel through which the blood of Abraham flowed into the veins of Joseph.

IV. No MAN STANDS ALONE. We are all parts of a vast organism. Asa and Jothan and Solomon each saw the life which he lived from his birth to his grave; but this was not the most important part of his life. That which followed his death, that which he lived in his descendants, was more far-reaching and wrought still greater results. (American Homiletic Review.)

.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 23. Thirty years of age] This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office: See Clarke on Nu 4:3.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph] This same phrase is used by Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a particular person: he was SUPPOSED to be this man’s son.

Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in St. Matthew, Mt 1:1-17, and there are several ways of doing it; the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the reader is referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter.

MATTHEW, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of SONS properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, c. But Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to GOD himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED the son of Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, c. This receives considerable support from Raphelius’s method of reading the original ( ) , being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, &c. That St. Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.

As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, bears, in a variety of places-Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.

The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Mt 1:16 and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1Ch 3:17, and Mt 1:12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter.

Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli; so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim.

Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Mt 1:13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See Lu 3:27.

Salathiel and Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ to proceed, were themselves descended from Solomon in a direct line: and though St. Luke says that Salathiel was son of Neri, who was descended from Nathan, Solomon’s eldest brother, 1Ch 3:5, this is only to be understood of his having espoused Nathan’s daughter, and that Neri dying, probably, without male issues the two branches of the family of David, that of Nathan and that of Solomon, were both united in the person of Zerubbabel, by the marriage of Salathiel, chief of the regal family of Solomon, with the daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Nathan. Thus it appears that Jesus, son of Mary, reunited in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called, The son of David. It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity. See Clarke on Mt 1:1, &c.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Here is amongst critics a little dispute, whether our blessed Lord at his baptism (after which he soon began his public ministry) was full thirty years of age; and in the Greek give occasion to the doubt. Those who judge that he was thirty complete, conceive that the age before which the priests and Levites did no service in the tabernacle of God. Num 4:3 commanded the number of them to be taken from thirty years old to fifty, and it was done accordingly, Luk 3:34,35, &c. David, in the latter end of his life, so numbered them, 1Ch 23:3, when their number (of that age) was thirty-eight thousand; yet in that chapter, 1Ch 23:24,27, we find them numbered from twenty years old and upward; but possibly that was for some more inferior service. In conformity to this, most think that both John the Baptist and Christ entered not upon their public ministry till they were of that age; but whether they were thirty years of age complete, or current, is a question, but so little a one, as deserves no great study to resolve: the two qualifying words, and , would incline one to think Christ was but thirty years of age current, which is advantaged by what others tell us, that the Jews ordinarily called a child two or three years old as soon as it did but enter upon its second or third year. Some think our Saviour was ten months above twenty-nine years of age when he was baptized, after which he was tempted of the devil forty days before he entered the public ministry; but these are little things.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. Joseph was not his natural father, though so supposed by the Jews, Joseph being indeed his legal father, being married to the virgin when our Saviour was born, Mat 1:20.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

23. he began to be about thirtythatis, “was about entering on His thirtieth year.” So ourtranslators have taken the word (and so CALVIN,BEZA, BLOOMFIELD,WEBSTER and WILKINSON,c.): but “was about thirty years of age when He began [Hisministry],” makes better Greek, and is probably the truesense [BENGEL, OLSHAUSEN,DE WETTE,MEYER, ALFORD,&c.]. At this age the priests entered on their office (Nu4:3).

being, as was supposed, theson of Joseph, &c.Have we in this genealogy, as well as inMatthew’s, the line of Joseph? or is this the line of Mary?apoint on which there has been great difference of opinion and muchacute discussion. Those who take the former opinion contendthat it is the natural sense of this verse, and that no other wouldhave been thought of but for its supposed improbability and theuncertainty which it seems to throw over our Lord’s real descent. Butit is liable to another difficulty namely, that in this case Matthewmakes Jacob, while Luke makes “Heli,” to beJoseph’s father; and though the same man had often more than onename, we ought not to resort to that supposition, in such a case asthis, without necessity. And then, though the descent of Mary fromDavid would be liable to no real doubt, even though we had no tableof her line preserved to us (see, for example, Lu1:2-32, and see on Lu 2:5),still it does seem unlikelywe say not incrediblethat twogenealogies of our Lord should be preserved to us, neither of whichgives his real descent. Those who take the latteropinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthewthat of Josephhere His real, there His reputedlineexplain the statement about Joseph, that he was “theson of Hell,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, asthe husband of his daughter Mary (as in Rth 1:11;Rth 1:12), and believe thatJoseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformitywith the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attendedwith fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported.However we decide, it is a satisfaction to know that not a doubt wasthrown out by the bitterest of the early enemies of Christianity asto our Lord’s real descent from David. On comparing the twogenealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediatelyfor Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Saviour was sprungfrom Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately forGentiles, traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock ofthe whole human family, thus showing Him to be the promised “Seedof the woman.” “The possibility of constructing such atable, comprising a period of thousands of years, in an uninterruptedline from father to son, of a family that dwelt for a long time inthe utmost retirement, would be inexplicable, had not the members ofthis line been endowed with a thread by which they couldextricate themselves from the many families into which every tribeand branch was again subdivided, and thus hold fast and know themember that was destined to continue the lineage. This thread was thehope that Messiah would be born of the race of Abraham and David. Theardent desire to behold Him and be partakers of His mercy and glorysuffered not the attention to be exhausted through a period embracingthousands of years. Thus the member destined to continue the lineage,whenever doubtful, became easily distinguishable, awakening the hopeof a final fulfilment, and keeping it alive until it was consummated”[OLSHAUSEN].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,…. Or Jesus, when he was baptized and began his public ministry, was about thirty years of age: an age at which the priests, under the law, who were typical of Christ, entered on their work, Nu 4:23 The word, “began”, is left out in the Syriac and Persic versions: and is often indeed redundant, as in Lu 3:8 and frequently in Mark’s Gospel. The Arabic version renders it, “Jesus began to enter into the thirtieth year”, which carries the sense the same with our translation:

being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph; who had espoused Mary before she was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to wife, and brought up her son; so that it was not known but that he was the son of Joseph. Whether or no the Jewish notion of the Messiah, the son of Joseph y may not take its rise from hence, may be considered: however, Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews z that he

“that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father,”

or parent; of which they give various instances a in Joseph, in Michal, and in Pharaoh’s daughter.

Which was the son of Eli; meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to Mt 1:16, but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi, c. till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell b us of one,

“that saw, , “Mary the daughter of Eli” in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere c, the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.”

By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews d, that

“the family of the mother is not called a family.”

y T. Bab. Succa, fol. 52. 1. Jarchi & Aben Ezra in Zech. xii 10. & xiii. 7. z Shemot Rabba, sect. 46. fol. 143. 1. a T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2. Vid. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 13. 1. b T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 3. c Ib. Chagiga, fol. 77. 4. d Juchasin, fol. 55. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Jesus Himself ( ). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work.

When he began to teach (). The words “to teach” are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version “began to be about thirty years of age,” is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies “to teach” () after the present participle . Either the infinitive or the participle can follow , usually the infinitive in the Koine. It is not necessary to supply anything (Ac 1:22).

Was about thirty years of age ( ). Tyndale has it right “Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne.” Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God’s prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more.

Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli ( H). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on Mt 1:1-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to “Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16). Matthew employs the word “begot” each time, while Luke has the article repeating (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that “Jacob begat Joseph” while Luke calls “Joseph the son of Heli.” There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase “as was supposed” ( ). His own narrative in Lu 1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses “begat” for descent, so does Luke employ “son” in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Matt 1:16; Matt 1:18-25 that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds “the Son of God” after Adam (3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Began to be about thirty years of age [ ] . Peculiar to Luke. A. V. is wrong. It should be as Rev., when he began (to teach) was about thirty years of age. ===Luk4

CHAPTER IV

1 – 13. Compare Mt 4:1 – 11; Mr 1:12 – 13.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

GENEALOGY OF MARY, MOTHER OF JESUS V. 23-38

1) “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,” (kai autos en lesous archomenos hosei eton trakonta) “And Jesus was himself about thirty years of age,” as He began His public doing and teaching ministry, the age required by Jewish law for one to be an administrative priest or teacher of the law, Num 4:3; Num 4:23; Num 4:30; Num 4:43; Num 4:47; Act 1:1.

2) “Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,” (on huios hos enomizeto loseph) “Being as was supposed, a son of Joseph,” who had come to the age to teach: 1) At which age Joseph stood before Pharaoh, 2) David began his reign, and 3) The scribes began to teach, as cited above. This term “Supposed” infers that Jesus was not Joseph’s son by nature; Yet, He was his son by the law, legally.

3) “Which was the son of Hell,” (tou Eli) “Who was the son of Eli,” or Jacob.

Although Jesus was the promised seed of the woman (Gen 3:15; Gal 4:4-5; 1Ti 3:16), His genealogy is traced through Joseph who was legally united to Mary by the law of marriage, which God instituted in Eden’s Paradise; and Jesus had an hereditary claim to the heritage rights of Joseph as son of David, and owed him fatherly obedience as set forth in Matthew chapter one. Luke then traces Mary’s lineage backward to Adam, through David, to certify, that as the Son of man He was of the seed of David, through Nathan’s natural descent, an uncursed son-lineage of David.

WHY THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST IS IMPORTANT

The doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus is important because: 1) It is required for the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy; and 2) because the Bible specifically states that Jesus shall reign on the throne of His father David. Had Jesus been born of Joseph, of the seed of David, He could not have sat upon David’s throne, because Joseph’s ancestry was from the line of Solomon, through Jechonias or Coniah. Solomon’s seed, after Coniah, was cut off from ever sitting on David’s throne, but Nathan’s seed, of the tribe of Judah and seed of David of Mary’s ancestry was not cut off. The seed of David by Nathan’s family could sit on David’s throne.

Of Coniah God said:

“Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah,” (Jer 22:30).

Joseph was the son of Jacob, of the lineage of Solomon, not of Nathan (Mat 1:6-11). Joseph was, however, the son-in-law of Heli, Mary’s father, whose lineage is traced to David through Nathan, Solomon’s full brother and David’s son (Luk 3:23; Luk 3:31). Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, of the lineage of David, family of Solomon, and father of the lineage of David, through the family of Solomon, of the tribe of Judah.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

This was also the reason why he delayed his baptism till the thirtieth year of his age, (Luk 3:23.) Baptism was an appendage to the Gospel: and therefore it began at the same time with the preaching of the Gospel. When Christ was preparing to preach the Gospel, he was introduced by Baptism into his office; and at the same time was endued with the Holy Spirit. When John beholds the Holy Spirit descending upon Christ, it is to remind him, that nothing carnal or earthly must be expected in Christ, but that he comes as a godlike man, (297) descended from heaven, in whom the power of the Holy Spirit reigns. We know, indeed, that he is God manifested in the flesh, (1Ti 3:16 🙂 but even in his character as a servant, and in his human nature, there is a heavenly power to be considered.

The second question is, why did the Holy Spirit appear in the shape of a dove, rather than in that of fire ? The answer depends on the analogy, or resemblance between the figure and the thing represented. We know what the prophet Isaiah ascribes to Christ.

“

He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench,” (Isa 42:2.)

On account of this mildness of Christ, by which he kindly and gently called, and every day invites, sinners to the hope of salvation, the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the appearance of a dove And in this symbol has been held out to us an eminent token of the sweetest consolation, that we may not fear to approach to Christ, who meets us, not in the formidable power of the Spirit, but clothed with gentle and lovely grace.

He saw the Spirit of God That is, John saw: for it immediately follows, that the Spirit descended on Christ There now arises a third question, how could John see the Holy Spirit? I reply: As the Spirit of God is everywhere present, and fills heaven and earth, he is not said, in a literal sense, to descend, and the same observation may be made as to his appearance. Though he is in himself invisible, yet he is spoken of as beheld, when he exhibits any visible sign of his presence. John did not see the essence of the Spirit, which cannot be discerned by the senses of men; (298) nor did he see his power, which is not beheld by human senses, but only by the understanding of faith: but he saw the appearance of a dove, under which God showed the presence of his Spirit. It is a figure of speech, (299) by which the sign is put for the thing signified, the name of a spiritual object being applied to the visible sign.

While it is foolish and improper to press, as some do, the literal meaning, so as to include both the sign and the thing signified, we must observe, that the connection subsisting between the sign and the thing signified is denoted by these modes of expression. In this sense, the bread of the Lord’s Supper is called the body of Christ, (1Co 10:16 🙂 not because it is so, but because it assures us, that the body of Christ is truly given to us for food. Meanwhile, let us bear in mind what I have just mentioned, that we must not imagine a descent of the thing signified, so as to seek it in the sign, as if it had a bodily place there, but ought to be abundantly satisfied with the assurance, that God grants, by his secret power, all that he holds out to us by figures.

Another question more curious than useful has been put. Was this dove a solid body, or the appearance of one? Though the words of Luke seem to intimate that it was not the substance of a body, but only a bodily appearance; yet, lest I should afford to any man an occasion of wrangling, I leave the matter unsettled.

(297) “ Un homme rempli de Dieu;” — “a man filled with God.”

(298) “ A parler proprement, il ne descend point, et semblablement ne peut estre veu.” — “Strictly speaking, he does not descend, and in like manner he cannot be seen.”

(299) “ C’est une maniere de parler par Metonymie, (ainsi que parlent les gens de lettres.”)—”It is a way of speaking by Metonymy, (as learned people talk.”)

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

Appleburys Comments

Scripture

Luk. 3:23-38 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son-o Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Comments

And Jesus himself.Luke has presented strong evidence in support of his claim that Jesus is the Son of God. The climax of that evidence is the report of Gods public acknowledgment of His Son when He said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. He is now ready to tell Theophilus about the ancestors of Jesus who is also the Son of Man. Matthew began the birth record with David and Abraham and traced it to Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born the Christ. But Lukethis is much more meaningful to a Gentilebegan with Jesus and traced His lineage through Nathan to David and finally to Adam and then adds the final note, the son of God.

as was supposed.Two interesting items open the paragraph: (1) Jesus was about thirty years old when He began to teach; (2) It was assumed by those who didnt know the facts that He was the son of Joseph.

Why did He wait until He was thirty? Our impatience makes us wonder why He didnt begin much sooner. But God had waited until the fulness of time to bring His Son into the world. There are many things involved in that statement, but one thing is clear, the world was ready for Him; the Jewish people were in expectation; even Gentiles were glad when they heard the news of salvation through Him. The simple answer, of course, to the question is that Jews expected their teachers to have some maturity when they began, This does not bar a younger man who is prepared to undertake a ministry for the Lord today.
It was only natural for those who did not know the facts to suppose that Jesus was the son of Joseph. He grew up in Josephs home and was obedient to Mary and Joseph. Of course, Mary and Joseph knew that He was the Son of Godhow well they understood it may be a questionbut there was no good way to tell others about it until after His ministry where He demonstrated it and His resurrection that proved it beyond a doubt. Even the Lords brothers were not aware of the truth that He is Lord and Christ until after they had become convinced of it by the force of the evidence of the resurrection.

the son of Heli.The names in this list differ somewhat from those given in Mat. 1:1-16. But both Matthew and Luke and Paul make it clear that Jesus, according to flesh was born of the seed of David (Rom. 1:3). Both Matthew and Luke make it clear that Joseph was not Jesus father; the conception was a miracle and Paul affirms that the resurrection designated Him as Son of God. The difference in the two lists may be explained by assumingwe have no way of proving itthat Luke gives Marys genealogy and Matthew gives Josephs.

of Nathan, the son of David.Matthew traced the line through Solomon, suggesting that Joseph was the legal heir to Davids throne. Luke traces it through Nathan, suggesting the blood line of Mary of whom was born Jesus the Christ.

the son of Adam.Adam was the head of the human race; Christ is the head of the new creation (1Co. 15:45-49). Adam was created by God and so was the son of God. But Jesus relation to God is unique, for, as John says, He was God (Joh. 1:1) and became flesh (Luk. 3:1-14). Therefore, He can rightly be called the only begotten Son of God (Joh. 1:18).

Summary

With this chapter Luke completes the evidencewith the exception of the account of the Temptationthat presents Jesus as the Son of God and the Son of Man who is ready to begin His ministry. He begins with a brief account of the ministry of John, then tells of the baptism of Jesus, and closes the chapter with the genealogy of Jesus.
John came with his stirring message at a time when all the people were in expectation, wondering if he could be the Messiah. But he was not the Christ; he was the prophet of God sent to tell the people to make ready for the coming of the Lord. He had a harsh message, for they were sinners. They were like valleys that had to be filled, mountains that had to be leveled, and curves that had to be straightened so that their lives might be suitable for the Lord. They were a fruitless tree that was about to be cut down. He commanded them to repent; he baptized them in the Jordan for the remission of their sins.
Johns message bore fruit. Crowds flocked to hear him from Jerusalem and the surrounding country. He baptized them as he saw that they were heeding his command to repent. Tax collectors came asking what they should do; soldiers wanted to know what to do. His answer was simple and direct: Repent and let your lives show that you have changed from your evil ways.
But John directed them to Jesus. He said, I baptize you in water, but the One who is coming after me will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire. By the baptism in the Holy Spirit He was to enable the apostles to tell men what to do to be saved and like wheat be gathered into the granary. But those who will not respond to their message will, like chaff that is burned up, be destroyed when Christ comes again.
Luke gave only a summary of what John did and taught. Among the many things which he did, John reproved Herod the tetrarch for the evil he had done, including his marriage to the wife of his brother. And for this, John was put in prison.
The climax of the evidence that presents Jesus as Son of God and Son of Man ready to begin His public ministry, came at the time of His baptism. John baptized Jesus because He said it was right to do the thing that God approves, and also that he might see the sign that shows Him as Son of God. At the baptism of Jesus, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and the Father said to Him, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Not until this evidence had been presented was Luke ready to tell about the ancestry of Jesus. He traced the line from Jesus all the way to Adam and to God.
One more incident belongs to this section of Lukes story and that is the account of the temptation of Jesus which is in chapter four. It shows that Satan was unable to shake the evidence that proves that Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man.

Questions

1.

What was the most important event, from the Christians point of view, in the reign of Caesar Augustus?

2.

For what things do we remember Herod the tetrarch?

3.

How did it happen that both Annas and Caiaphas were high priests at the same time?

4.

What is the significance of the statement that the word of God came to John?

5.

What is meant by baptism of repentance?

6.

What was the purpose of Johns baptism?

7.

How does Isaiahs prophecy fit the condition of Johns time?

8.

Why is John called the voice of one crying in the wilderness?

9.

What Scriptures did the Jews have in mind when they asked if John was the prophet or Elijah?

10.

How was John to prepare for the Lord?

11.

What is there in the prophecy of Isaiah that indicates that the Gentiles were to share in the salvation through Christ?

12.

What was Johns attitude toward the multitudes who came to hear him?

13.

Why did he liken them to a tree about to be cut down?

14.

What did he mean by saying that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham?

15.

What did John tell the crowds to do? the publicans? the soldiers?

16.

What does Luke say about the attitude of the people at the time of Johns appearing in the wilderness?

17.

Why should we say that John baptized in water rather than with water?

18.

How could Johns baptism be for remission of sins?

19.

Into what two elements was Jesus to baptize?

20.

What was the purpose of the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

21.

What is the baptism in fire?

22.

With what illustration did John explain the two baptisms?

23.

Why was John imprisoned?

24.

Why was Jesus baptized?

25.

What did the descent of the Spirit on Jesus mean to John?

26.

What was Jesus doing when He was being baptized?

27.

What is the significance of the fact that the Voice of God spoke at the baptism of Jesus?

28.

Why did Luke wait until this point in his narrative to give the genealogy of Jesus?

29.

How are we to understand the statement that Jesus was the son of Joseph (as was supposed)?

30.

How account for the difference between Lukes list and Matthews?

31.

Why did Luke trace the genealogy to Adam?

32.

What is the connection between the temptation of Jesus and what was said about Him at the time of His baptism?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(23) Began to be about thirty years of age.At this age the Levites entered on their full work (Num. 4:23; Num. 4:30; Num. 4:35), a kind of probationary period beginning at twenty-five (Num. 8:24) or even, in later times, when their work was lighter, at twenty (1Ch. 23:27). No age was fixed for the beginning of the priesthood, nor of the prophets work; but it may fairly be inferred that thirty was looked on as the time when manhood reached its completeness, and we may therefore believe that our Lord waited in patient humility till that age had been attained before entering on the work of His public ministry.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.We have here to deal with the many questions which rise out of a comparison of this genealogy with that in Matthew 1. It is a subject on which volumes have been written. Here it will be enough to sum up the results of previous inquiries.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

9. GENEALOGY OF JESUS, Luk 3:22-38 .

To what we say on the authenticity of this genealogy in our note on Mat 1:1, we may here add the following: 1. The Jews positively affirm that most accurate genealogies were kept in Jesus’s day. Says Josephus against Apion, Luk 1:7, “Whosoever desires to become priest must be married to a wife from his own people, and must fetch proof of his lineage from our archives. Wherever any of our race reside the same law is observed; for they all transmit catalogues of their fathers and forefathers, with the names of the witnesses, to Jerusalem. Our high priests keep written family registers, which contain the names of their ancestors for the two thousand past years.” R. Jochanan, the Jews say, asseverated thus: “By the temple! we are able to detect all of impure blood in Israel.” And Rabbi Levi says: “They discovered in Jerusalem a family pedigree in which Hillel was proved to be a descendant of David.” 2. The genuineness of the genealogy was not questioned by the Jews in the first Christian ages. On the contrary, Mary is expressly called the daughter of Heli in the Talmud. And on that passage in the Talmud Raschi thus comments, “Jesus was connected with the blood royal by birth.”

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

23. About thirty years of age Thirty years was the legal age for entering on the priesthood. It was also the age at which the scribes entered upon professional duty as teachers. The word about here simply implies that Jesus may have been some months younger or older.

As was supposed Being his apparent and legal son.

Of the different theories of reconciliation between the genealogies of Jesus given respectively by Matthew and by Luke, we may discuss but two:

I. Matthew gives the line of Joseph; Luke, of Mary. Mary’s name does not indeed appear in Luke’s list; but that agrees with the Jewish rule of genealogy, that the female is not reckoned in any genealogical line. Luke’s genealogy is really that of Heli; and it is adduced here by Luke to show that Jesus, son of Mary, is in that line, and so in the natural line of David. Joseph rightfully and legally takes his place in the recorded descent from Heli, because he is his son-in-law. And it is remarkable that the Jews in their Talmud call Mary the daughter of Heli, showing that either that is their own tradition, or that so they originally understood the genealogy as recorded.

II. The theory of Lord Arthur Hervey, lately published in England, founded in a good degree on the theory of Grotius, seems likely to be ultimately universally adopted. This theory in its details solves so many of the facts as not only to remove difficulties, but to furnish a sort of proof of the genuineness of the record.

By this theory Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph (including in fact that of Mary) in the line of royal inheritance; Luke gives that of natural descent. This is made clear by the following table:

From David Matthew traces the royal line through Solomon to Jechonias, whereas Luke gives the private line through Nathan to Salathiel. But Jechonias was childless, (Jer 22:30,) so that with him the Solomonic line ended. Consequently Salathiel, of the Nathanic line, came into the royal heirship. By this transfer Salathiel stands in both: namely, the line of natural descent from David through Nathan, and the line of political succession to the crown. From Zorobabel’s son, Abiud, Matthew furnishes a series of heirs; from his other son, Rhesa, Luke gives the natural line of Joseph down to Matthat. But this Matthat is the same as Matthew’s Matthan. Of this Matthat Jacob and Heli are two sons; the former, being the elder, is crown-heir; the second stands in the private line. Heli’s son is JOSEPH; Jacob, the crown-heir, has only a daughter, MARY. The royal line thus failing of a direct male heir, Joseph marries Mary and is thus transferred to the royal line both by kin and by marriage.

Both these views secure the true Davidic descent of Mary; which is indeed absolutely necessary to the fulfilment of that most explicit divine promise (2Sa 7:12,) “I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels.” So Peter affirms (Act 2:30) that God sware to David, “that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ.” Words like these cannot be fulfilled by any adoptive or marriage paternity.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age,’

Note here how the genealogy is connected with the commencement of His teaching ministry. His qualifications for His teaching ministry are being described. He was ‘about’ thirty years of age. Luke has a tendency to attach ‘about’ to time notices (Luk 1:56; Luk 2:37; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:28; Luk 22:59, Luk 23:44; Act 5:7; Act 10:3; Act 12:1; Act 13:18; Act 19:34). This shows a commendable desire for accuracy. It is probably no coincidence that thirty years of age was when Levites entered their full ministry (Num 4:47). Jesus was seen as having reached the recognised age of religious maturity, as being in full readiness, and as strong enough physically and mentally for the task that was before Him.

It is very noteworthy that neither He nor His Father had seen His period of carpentry and looking after His family as unimportant. It had been preparing Him for His destiny. It was only in His Father’s appointed time that His call came. But the important thing was that He had used His time prior to His call wisely in order to prepare for it. He had learned much of patience and careful treatment of delicate material at His carpenter’s bench, and in dealing with His customers. It would be extremely useful to Him in His ministry. None would be able to accuse Him of not understanding what the daily grind, or the problems of family life, were like. We too must learn to be patient, while at the same time being ever responsive to the will of God. While we must certainly ‘make the most of the time’, we must also remember that God is not in a hurry. It is a matter of holding the two in balance, the one lest we become lazy, the other lest we become discouraged.

If taken strictly this age would confirm His birth as being in 3-1 BC. 3 BC would tie His birth in with the ‘enrolment’ on Augustus’ twenty fifth anniversary of his reign. But it causes a problem for the dating of Herod’s death. However, in view of Luke’s ‘about’, and the probable intention of linking His age with the commencement of Levite service, the exact age cannot be stressed, and we would be unwise to use it for arguing about any dates within a few years.

The genealogy demonstrates that Jesus is descended from David, but also that He is descended from Abraham and Adam, He is of royal blood of the house of David, He is of the seed of Abraham, He is a true son of Adam. Thus He is in the royal line, the line of promise, and the line of the human race. The carrying back of His genealogy to Adam may justly be seen as connecting Him with the whole of mankind, and therefore with Gentile as well as Jew. All mankind is seen as summed up in Him.

For purposes which will become apparent we will divide the genealogy into sevens (including Jesus’ name in the first seven).

3:23b-24a ‘Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai.’

3:24b-26a ‘The son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath.’

3:26b-27a ‘The son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel.’

3:27b-28a ‘The son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er.’

3:28b-30a ‘The son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Symeon, the son of Judas.’

3:30b -31a ‘The son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan.’

3:31b-33a ‘The son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab.’

3:33b-34a ‘The son of Admin, son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac.’

3:34b-35a ‘The son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber.’

3:35b-37a ‘The son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah.’

3:37b-38a ‘The son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam.

3:38b ‘The son of God.’

It must be agreed that the result of dividing into sevens is remarkable. Jesus heads the list and the first line, David heads the seventh line (the divinely chosen king), Abraham heads the ninth line (the one who received the promises, three times three, total completeness), and God, Who clearly stands alone, the twelfth line (as the God of the twelve tribes). We might also note that Enoch, ‘the seventh from Adam’ (Jud 1:14), heads the eleventh line. Apart from these comes Adam at the end of the list as the first man and as the son of God. From Jesus to Adam there are seventy seven names (the number of divine perfection intensified, compare Gen 4:24).

(If Admin (or any other name) is omitted (with D, 28) then Jesus heads the list, and David heads the seventh line of the list. Zerubbabel, Abraham, and Enoch (‘the seventh from Adam’), all of whom were distinguished in the service of God, each close a group of sevens. There are seventy seven names in the list (divine perfection intensified), and Jesus begins the list and God ends it. The basic idea is the same. If Irenaeus seventy two names were taken we would have the fact that Jesus and God were separated by seventy names, but his list probably resulted from wrong omissions).

It must, however, be stressed that what follows does not mainly depend on the division into sevens, it arises from the genealogy as a whole. The sevens simply give it more emphasis.

By this genealogy the hand of God behind history is declared in a number of ways, for by the ‘divine pattern’ lying behind the genealogy the uniqueness of Jesus as the ‘seventy seventh’ from Adam is made clear, His descent from David and Abraham, and from Enoch (known as ‘the seventh from Adam’) as well as Adam, is stressed, and He is linked directly with God, with Him heading the first and God heading the last line in the table, and with ‘Of God’ standing alone in glorious splendour. In view of the words spoken from heaven at Jesus’ reception of the Spirit, declaring Him to be both Davidic King and Servant, the connection with David and Abraham is significant. Abraham was the prime example of the Servant of the Lord, for which see Gen 26:24, and his connection with the Servant of the Lord in Isa 41:8 as God’s friend.

The connection with Adam is especially significant as is evidenced in that the genealogy goes back to him. Yet Luke could have stopped there, so that we have to take into account a significance for ‘of God’ which makes it more than just a list of descent. A number of connected lessons come from this connection.

1). The connection with Adam stresses Jesus’ perfect humanity. He is the seventy seventh from Adam. If Enoch the seventh from Adam walked with God and was not because God took him, what can be said of the seventy seventh from Adam?

2). It may be that the intention is also to depict Him as ‘the last Adam’, the fulfilment of what Adam should have been, and as a contrast with the one with whom God was not well pleased. Jesus was his replacement, the first man born of Adam of whom it could be said ‘in Whom I am well pleased’, and Who will pass that on to others. ‘The first Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit’ — the first man was from the earth, a man of dust, the second man is from Heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of Heaven, so are those who are of Heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of Heaven’ (1Co 15:45-49).

3). The genealogy opens with ‘(Jesus) being as was supposed the son of Joseph’, the implication being that in fact He was not, He was the true Son of God (Luk 1:35), while it closes with ‘Adam, the (adopted) son of God’. In between comes the whole of history. Thus a new period in history is seen as beginning, receiving its life from a new source. The first ‘son of God’ failed. Thus the implication is that a new Son of God has had to enter the world to accomplish what the first one failed to do, the establishment of the everlasting Kingly Rule of God.

4). Finally the term ‘Of God’ standing uniquely alone would confirm the words of the angel to Mary that Jesus will be the Son of God. Jesus was ‘of God’. The fact that this immediately precedes the temptation story where the idea of the Son of God is prominent suggests that ‘son of God’ here is intended to have more significance than just as a description of Adam.

It will be noted that Adam being seen as the son of God as the last item, parallels Jesus being seen as the son of Joseph as the first item. In both cases it is a sonship not by natural birth but by adoption, In the first case Adam is declared to be ‘Of God’, and then in the second case there is a reverse situation where it is the one adopted Who is, as every reader knows, the Son of God announced by the angel (Luk 1:35). Luke says, of Jesus’ relationship to Joseph ‘being as was supposed the son of’ making clear that the relationship is not a natural one. No one doubted that the relationship between Adam and God was not a natural one. Thus Jesus and God are seen as unique among all in the genealogy, the One as the Son with an adopted father, but really being the Son of God, and the Father as having an ‘adopted son’, but with Jesus being His real Son. This links them together in their uniqueness. It brings out too the awfulness of sin. The one who was adopted by the Father sinned against Him. The One Who was adopted by an earthly father was without sin towards him.

Some have argued that the Greek indicates that Jesus is directly and physically connected with Heli (through Mary), with being ‘of Heli’ indicated by the definite article, while Joseph is simply brought in because he was Jesus’ ‘supposed’ father, as depicted by his not having the definite article, the only name in the list apart from Jesus not to have it.

How the reader sees the genealogy will determine how he sees the description ‘Of God’ (in the Greek ‘son’ is understood). If he sees the genealogy as leading down to Adam as the prototype of Jesus, then he will see Jesus as the perfect Man, ‘the second Man’, the last Adam, fully human in the same way as Adam, partaking as he did in the image and likeness of God before the Fall. If he sees it as leading down to ‘Of God’ he will interpret it in the light of what has gone before as a reminder that Jesus is the Son of God. Some may see both.

That we may be justified in seeing this arrangement of ‘sevens’ as in Luke’s mind is clearly brought out by Matthew who deliberately and openly (Mat 1:17) contrives to divide his genealogy of Jesus into groups of fourteen (whether seven times two or according to the gematra of David). Luke (or his source) may therefore have done something similar with sevens. Such use of numbers was commonplace in the 1st century AD, and would be spotted by the discerning reader, who would be looking for it.

Note On The Differing Genealogies Of Matthew And Luke.

It is often asked why there should be two genealogies of Jesus. A number of possibilities can be considered:

1) That we have here the genealogy of Joseph in Matthew and that of Mary in Luke, in the latter of which, assuming Mary to be an only child, her husband takes her place in the line of descent in order that he might inherit with her (see Num 36:1-12), thus making Joseph the son of Heli by marriage, and preserving the name. If Luke wanted to give the genealogy through Mary it can be argued that this would be the ‘respectable’ way of doing it. It can be claimed that this approach was also necessary in view of the uniqueness of the situation. Normally the wife’s line might not be seen as important, but in this exceptional case it would be seen as all important if a direct line to Adam were to be proved in order to demonstrate His humanity.

Against this view is the fact that elsewhere in Luke there is no direct indication of the Davidic descent of Mary, and this might be seen as underlined by the fact that in Luk 1:27 we have the stress that it is ‘descent’ through Joseph that is important. However it can be noted in reply that in Luk 1:69 Zacharias speaks of Mary’s baby as being from the house of David even when he could not be sure that Joseph would go through with the marriage, which suggests that he did see the line of descent as being through Mary. Furthermore chapter 1 does stress that Jesus is to be born of Mary and not through Joseph, and we may therefore argue that Luke would therefore expect that his readers would see the genealogy accordingly. Seen as further confirming this might be the fact that the Jews never challenged Jesus’ Davidic descent even when they claimed that He was Mary’s illegitimate son, which suggests that they too knew of the Davidic descent of Mary. We therefore have to choose between the alternatives

It should be noted in this regard that it could only be a genealogy through Mary that could demonstrate His humanity, for only she was the living link.

2) That Joseph was begotten by the half-brother of a brother who died, both having different fathers, who raised up seed to his brother’s wife according to the custom of levirate marriage (Deu 25:5-10). Joseph would then effectively be the son of both half-brothers, and have two grandfathers, one by natural birth, the other by custom. This would be by using the custom of levirate marriage whereby a brother was responsible to raise up seed for his deceased brother. This is perfectly possible. Two such genealogies could have been maintained and have been correct and socially acceptable.

3) That the genealogy in Matthew is, from David onwards, the line of legal descent showing the heirs to the throne. In that case when one in the line died sonless the line would then pass to the nearest male heir. This could have resulted in Joseph, who was descended from David through Nathan, having become heir to the throne by default as the nearest eligible male relative, or because his father had been the nearest eligible male relative in such a situation. Thus he would then for that purpose also trace his line of descent back to Solomon, as well as to Nathan. In view of the importance of the fact that Jesus was seen as the heir of David we would expect to find such a genealogy, which would be especially important to the Jews for whom Matthew was initially writing. This would find some support in the fact that Matthew emphasises the kingship of Jesus, with his genealogy pointedly going back to David through Solomon. It then goes back to Abraham because he has Jewish readers in mind.

Luke on the other hand may have wanted to portray the actual line by birth, because he was concerned with the natural descent from Adam in order to stress Jesus’ true humanity. His view was that the Gentile Christians would be more interested in a table of actual descent, rather than in a table of legal descent, as long as it demonstrated that Jesus was a son of David.

Supporting the difference between the two lines would be the fact that Isaiah had distinctly stated that the child who was to inherit the throne of David was not to come from the same line as Ahaz, which was why the miraculous birth in Isa 7:14 was mentioned as necessary in the first place. This would discount him as coming through Solomon and Ahaz by natural birth. Further to this is the word of the Lord declaring that no direct offspring of Jeconiah will sit on the throne of David and rule again in Judah (Jer 22:30).

As we have no way of finally proving any one of these solutions we must leave each person to decide for themselves which they feel to be the most likely.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus is The Son of David (the Messiah), the Son of Abraham (the Servant), the Son of Adam (truly Man), the Son of God (revealing the image and likeness of God) (3:23-38).

There now follows a genealogy of Jesus, making important connections. Our first concentration here must be on its significance for Luke. We can consider its ‘problems’ later. Some have expressed surprise that the genealogy appears here, but in fact it fits perfectly into its setting. Jesus has just been anointed as the Prophet of God. He has been declared to be both Messiah and Servant. So the natural question for the reader is, ‘Who was He?’ By this genealogy Luke links Jesus to the house of David, to being the seed of Abraham, to being descended from Adam, and to being in the image and likeness of God.

There is little doubt about the genealogy of Jesus being readily available. The Jews were very concerned to trace their ancestry, and prove the purity of their descent, of which they were very proud. Those who would be active in the priesthood had to prove their ancestral right to do so, while any seeker after civil office would be required to prove true descent. The house of David would certainly come not a whit behind in maintaining evidence of their own privileged position. They may not have been actually ruling, but the family would maintain its pride in their right to do so, and ensure and prize the maintenance of the records that proved it. We have in fact evidence of others who also sought to prove Davidic descent by this means. Thus we should not be surprised to find that such information was available from different viewpoints.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The genealogy of Jesus:

v. 23. And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

v. 24. which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

v. 25. which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

v. 26. which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

v. 27. which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobbabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

v. 28. which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

v. 29. which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

v. 30. which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

v. 31. which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the. son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

v. 32. which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

v. 33. which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

v. 34. which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

v. 35. which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

v. 36. which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

v. 37. which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

v. 38. which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

The legal genealogical table of Christ is given by Mat 1:1-17, who takes care to establish an unbroken sequence back to David. We have here the natural genealogical table of Jesus, through His mother Mary. There are no special features in the list, although the names of such men appear as were born of women under a cloud according to Jewish understanding. There were some exceptionally great sinners among the forefathers of Jesus, and, as one commentator remarks, He was numbered with the transgressors even by virtue of His descent from such notorious transgressors. In comparing this list with the Old Testament accounts, it should be remembered that son and son-in-law are used indiscriminately. “The two son-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Mat 1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias, 1Ch 3:17; Mat 1:12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove all difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter. Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli, so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim. Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary, daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Mat 1:13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest, v. 27. ” Of interest is the fact that Luke continues the genealogy of Jesus beyond David to Adam, and thus to God. He thereby emphasizes the universality of the Gospel of this Jesus, the Brother of all men, whose ministry is by no means confined to the Jews, but extends beyond the boundaries of Judea to the ends of the world. Scripture spares no trouble to testify to us that Jesus Christ is true man, descended with us from one blood, and that He is the Savior promised to the patriarchs of the Old Testament, the blessed seed of Abraham, the Shiloh out of the family of Judah, the son out of the house of David, in whom is our one sure trust of salvation.

Summary. John the Baptist begins his ministry of preaching and baptizing, also of bearing witness of Jesus, whom he baptized before he was imprisoned by Herod the tetrarch; the natural genealogical table of Jesus is given, extending His line back to Adam.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Luk 3:23. And Jesus himself began to be, &c. Our Lord having received these different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in the presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. See the beginning of the first note on this chapter. To understand St. Luke’s account of our Lord’s age at his baptism aright, we must take notice, that his words stand thus in construction; , : and Jesus himself, when he began, was about thirty year of age; that is to say, when he began his ministry,in opposition to the commencement of the Baptist’s ministry, the history of which is given in the preceding part of this chapter. In Act 1:21-22 we read, Wherefore, of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning [, ] from the baptism of John unto the same day that he was taken up from us, &c. Here Christ’s ministry is evidently said to have commenced at the baptism of John,the time that John baptized him, and to have ended at the day of his ascension. The author of the Vindication of the beginning of St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s Gospels, would render the words, and Jesus was obedient (or lived in subjection to his parents) about thirty years: and he produces several passages from approved Greek authors, in which signifies subject; but in all these places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense, and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this; and since the evangelist had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word , Ch. Luk 2:51 there is great reason to believe that he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. With what amazement should we reflect upon it, that the blessed Jesus, though so early ripened for the most extensive services, should live in retirement even till the thirtieth year! that he deferred his ministry so long, should teach us not to thrust ourselves forward to public stations, till we plainly discover a divine call. That he deferred it no longer, should be an engagement to us to avoid unnecessary delays, and to give God the prime and vigour of our life. Our great Master attained not, as it seems, to the conclusion of his thirty-fifth year, if he so much as entered upon it; yet what glorious atchievements did heaccomplish within those narrow limits of time! happy that servant who with any proportionate zeal dispatches the great business of life!

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, I. In the first place, with respect to the genealogies of St. Matthew and St. Luke, we may observe, that St. Matthew opens his history with our Lord’s genealogy, by Joseph his supposed Father; St. Luke gives us his genealogy on the mother’s side. The words before us, properly pointed and translated, run thus; being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. He was the son of Joseph by common report; but in reality the son of Heli, by his mother who was Heli’s daughter. We have a parallel example, Gen 36:2 where Aholibamah’s pedigree is thus deduced; Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon; for, since it appears from Luk 3:24-25 that Anah was the son, not the daughter of Zibeon, it is undeniable that as Moses calls Aholibamah the daughter both of Anah and of Zibeon, because she was the grand-daughter; so Jesus is fitly called the son of Heli, because he was his grandson. However, the common pointingandconstructionofthepassagemaybe retained, consistently with the present opinion; because though the words the son of Heli should be referred to Joseph, they may imply no more than that Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, his son by marriage with his daughter Mary. The ancient Jews and Christians understood this passage in the one or other of these senses; for the Talmudists commonly call Mary by the name of Heli’s daughter. In proof of what we have advanced above, we observe that the two genealogies are entirely different, from David downward; and that if, as some have supposed, these genealogies exhibit Joseph’s pedigree only, the one by hisnatural, the other by his legal father, the natural and legal fathers would have been brothers, when it is plain they were not; Jacob, Joseph’s father in St. Matthew, being the son of Matthan, the son of Eleazar; whereas Heli, the father supposed to be assigned by St. Luke, was the son of Matthat, a different person from Matthan, because the son of Levi. And further, on this supposition we should be altogether uncertain whether our Lord’s mother, from whom alone he sprang, was a daughter of David; and consequently could not prove that he had any other relation to David, than that his mother was married to one of the descendants of that prince. Let the reader judge whether this fully comes up to the import of the passages of Scripture which tell us, he was made of the seed of David. Rom 1:3. Act 2:30.

II. Taking it for granted, then, that St. Luke gives our Lord’s real pedigree, and St. Matthew that of his supposed father, it may reasonably be asked, why St. Matthew has done so? To which it may be replied, that he intended to remove the scruples of those who knew that the Messiah was to be the heir of David’s crown; a reason, which appears the stronger, if we suppose with some learned writers, that St. Matthew wrote posterior to St. Luke, who has given the real pedigree. Now, though Joseph was not Christ’s real father, it was directly for the evangelist’s purpose to derive his pedigree from David, and shew that he was the eldest surviving branch of the posterity of that prince; because, that point established, it was well enough understood that Joseph, by marrying our Lord’s mother, after he knew she was with child of him, adopted him for his son, and raised him both to the dignity and the privileges of David’s heir; accordingly, the genealogy concludes in terms which imply this; Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. Joseph is not called the father of Jesus, but the husband of his mother Mary; and the privileges following this adoption will appear to be more essentially connected with it, if, as is probable, Joseph never had any child: for thus the regal line of David’s descendants by Solomon, failing in Joseph, his rights were properly transferred to Jesus, his adopted son, who indeed was of the same family, though by another branch. St. Matthew therefore has deduced our Lord’s political and royal pedigree, with a view to prove his title to the kingdom of Israel, by virtue of the rights which he acquired through his adoption; whereas St. Luke explains his natural descent in the several successions of those from whom he derived his human nature, down to the Virgin Mary. See the note on Mat 1:16.

III. Our Lord’s genealogy given by St. Luke, will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history is attended to. It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God (which includes his being the true Messiah), and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptations of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to bruise the serpent’s head. Accordingly, St. Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception in the womb of his mother, carries his genealogy up to Adam, who together with Eve received the before-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman. That the genealogy, not only of our Lord’s mother, but of his reputed father, should have been given by the sacred historians, was wisely ordered; because the two, taken together, prove him to be descended from David and Abraham in every respect, and consequently that one of the most remarkable characters of the Messiah was fulfilled in him; the principal promises concerning the great personage, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed, having been made to those patriarchs in quality of his progenitors. See Gen 22:18. Psa 132:11-12 and Mat 1:1.

IV. Bishop Burnet, speaking of the authentic tables which, according to the custom of the Jewish nation, were preserved with the greatest accuracy, observes, that had not the genealogy of Christ been taken exactly according to the temple registers, the bare shewing of them had served to have confuted the whole. For, if any one thing among them was clear and uncontroverted (the sacred oracles excepted), it was the register of their genealogies; since these proved that they were Abraham’s seed, and likewise made out their title to the lands, which from the days of Joshua were to pass down either to immediate descendants, or, as they failed, to collateral degrees. Now this shews plainly, that there was a double office kept of their pedigrees; one was natural, and might be taken when the rolls of circumcision were made up; and the other relative to the division of the land; in which, when the collateral line came instead of the natural, then the last was dropped, as extinct, and the other remained. It being thus plain from their constitution, that they had these two orders of tables, we are not at all concerned in the diversity of the two evangelists on this head; since both might have copied them out from those two offices at the temple; and if they had not done it faithfully, the Jews could have authentically demonstrated their error in ascribing to our Saviour by a false pedigree, that received character of the Messiah,that he was to be the son of David. Therefore, since no exceptions were made at the time when the sight of the rolls must have ended the inquiry, it is plain that they were faithfully copied out; nor are we now bound to answer such difficulties as seem to arise out of them, since they were not questioned at the time in which only an appeal could be made to the public registers themselves.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Luk 3:23 . ] as Mat 3:4 : He Himself , to whom this divine , Luk 3:22 , pointed.

] He was about thirty years of age (comp. Luk 2:42 ; Mar 5:42 ), when He made the beginning , [74] viz. of His Messianic office. This limitation of the meaning of results from Luk 3:22 , in which Jesus is publicly and solemnly announced by God as the Messiah. So Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jansen, Er. Sehmid, Spanheim, Calovius, Clericus, Wolf, Bengel, Griesbach (in Velthusen, Comment . I. p. 358), Kuinoel, Anger ( Tempor. rat . p. 19), de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Bleek, and others. With the reception of his baptismal consecration, Jesus entered on the commencement of His destined ministry. Comp. Mar 1:1 ; Act 1:21 f., Luk 10:37 . The interpretation given by others: “Incipiebat autem Jesus annorum esse fere triginta,” Castalio (so Luther, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, and many more), could only be justified either by the original running: , or . It is true that Grotius endeavours to fortify himself in this interpretation by including in the clause the following , so that might mean: incipio jam esse tricenarius . But even if be conjoined in Greek usage (see Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr . ii. 3. 13, p. 207, Leipzig), how clumsy would be the expression , incipiebat esse! and, according to the arrangement of the words, quite intolerable. Even has been conjectured (Casaubon).

] belongs to , and , as he was considered ( , , Euthymius Zigabenus), is a parenthesis. Paulus, who connects with . , explains: according to custom (Jesus did not begin His ministry sooner). Comp. on Act 16:13 . It is true the connecting of the two participles would not in itself be ungrammatical (see Pflugk, ad Hec. 358); but this way of looking at the matter is altogether wrong, because, in respect of the appearance of the Messiah , there could be no question of a custom at all, and the fixing of the age of the Levites (Num 4:3 ; Num 4:47 ), which, moreover, was not a custom, but a law , has nothing to do with the appearance of a prophet, and especially of the Messiah. Comp. further, on ., Dem. 1022. 16 : , , and the passages in Wetstein. Others (quoted by Wolf, and Wolf himself, Rosenmller, Osiander) refer to : existens ( cum putaretur filius Josephi ) filius , i.e. nepos Eli . So also Schleyer in the Theol. Quartalschr . 1836, p. 540 ff. Even Wieseler (in the Stud. u. Krit . 1845, p. 361 ff.) has condescended in like manner (comp. Lightfoot, p. 750) to the desperate expedient of exegetically making it out to be a genealogical tree of Mary thus: “ being a son, as it was thought, of Joseph ( but, in fact, of Mary ), of Eli ,” etc. Wieseler supports his view by the fact that he reads, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, . after (B L ), and on weaker evidence reads before the which is now again deleted even by Tischendorf. But as, in respect of the received arrangement of . , it is only the , and nothing more (in opposition to Bengel), that is marked out as coming under the , so also is it in the arrangement of Lachmann (only that the latter actually brings into stronger prominence the supposed filial relationship to Joseph); and if is read before , no change even in that case arises in the meaning. [75] For it is not that would have to be supplied in every following clause, so that Jesus should be designated as the son of each of the persons named, even up to inclusively (so Lightfoot, Bengel), but (after ), as the nature of the genealogical table in itself presents it, [76] making also dogmatically indubitable; since, according to Luke’s idea of the divine sonship of Jesus, it could not occur to him to represent this divine sonship as having been effected through Adam . No; if Luke had thought what Wieseler reads between the lines in Luk 3:23 , that, namely, Eli was Mary’s father, he would have known how to express it, and would have written something like this: , , , (Luk 23:47 , Luk 24:34 ) . . . But he desires to give the genealogy of Jesus on the side of His foster-father Joseph : therefore he writes simply as we read, and as the fact that he wished to express required. As to the originally Ebionitic point of view of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, see on Mat 1:17 , Remark 3.

[74] So also Paulus, only that, after the example of Calvisius, he further attaches to , in which case, however, it would be useless, and the subsequent genealogy would be without any connecting link. Wieseler, Chronol. Synops . p. 125, placing before (so Lachmann in the margin and Tischendorf), explains: “and he was namely, Jesus when He began about thirty years of age.” Therefore in the most essential point his view is in agreement with ours.

[75] This indifferent came into the text with extreme facility, in accordance with the analogy of all the following clauses.

[76] Instances of a quite similar kind of stringing on the links of a genealogy one after the other by are found in Herod. iv. 157, vii. 204, viii. 131, and others in Wetstein. The Vulgate is right in simply reading, “filius Joseph, qui fait Heli, qui fuit Matthat,” etc.

REMARK.

All attempts to fix the year in which Jesus was born by means of the passage before us are balked by the of Luk 3:23 . Yet the era of Dionysius bases its date, although incorrectly (754 after the foundation of Rome), on Luk 3:1 ; Luk 3:23 . Hase, L. J. 26, follows it, setting aside, because of its mythical associations, the account of Matthew, that the first childhood of Jesus occurred as early as the time of the reign of Herod the Great. But these legendary ingredients do not justify our rejecting a date fixed by a simple reference to the history of the time, for it is rather to be regarded as the nucleus around which the legend gathered. As, however, Herod died in 750 (Anger, Rat. tempor . p. 5 f.; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse , p. 50 ff.), the era of Dionysius is at any rate at least about four years in error. If, further, it be necessary, according to this, to place the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod, which occurred in the beginning of April, then, even on the assumption that He was born as early as 750 (according to Wieseler, in February of that year), it follows that at the time when the Baptist, who was His senior only by a few months, appeared according to Luk 3:1 , in the year from the 19th August 781 to 782

He would be about thirty-one years of age, which perfectly agrees with the of Luk 3:23 , and the round number ; in which case it must be assumed as certain (comp. Mar 1:9 ) that He was baptized very soon after the appearance of John, at which precise point His Messianic commenced. If, however, as according to Mat 2:7 ; Mat 2:16 is extremely probable, the birth of Jesus must be placed as early as perhaps a year before the date given above, [77] even the age that thus results of about thirty-two years is sufficiently covered by the indefinite statement of the passage before us; and the year 749 as the year of Christ’s birth tallies well enough with the Baptist beginning to preach in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. [78]

[77] Not “ at least two years , probably even four or more years,” Keim, D. geschichtl. Christus , p. 140.

[78] From the fact that, according to the evangelists, Jesus after His baptism began His public official ministry without the intervention of any private teaching, the opinion of the younger Bunsen ( The Hidden Wisdom of Christ , etc., London 1865, II. p. 461 ff.) that the Lord, at the beginning of His official career, was forty-six years of age loses all foundation: It rests upon the misunderstanding of Joh 2:20 f., Joh 8:57 , which had already occurred in the case of Irenaeus. See, on the other hand, Rsch in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol . 1866, p. 4 ff. The assumption of the latter, that the year 2 before the era of Dionysius was the year of Christ’s birth, rests in accordance with ancient tradition, to be sure, yet on the very insecure foundation of the appearance of the star in the history of the Magi, and on distrust of the chronology of Herod and his sons as set forth by Josephus, for which Rsch has not adduced sufficient reasons.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

B. Testimony of the Genealogy. Luk 3:23-38

23And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age [Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age when He began (His ministry)];13 being (as was supposed) the son24of Joseph, which [who] was14 the son15 of Heli,16 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which 25was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of 27Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son 28of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son 29of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of 30Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of 31Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the 32son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the33son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which 34was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which 35was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of37Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son 38of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Luk 3:23. When He began, (His ministry).The rendering, And Jesus was, when He began (i.e., to preach), about thirty years of age, is not free from difficulties, but is recommended by its connection with the context. For, in the preceding verses, the Evangelist has been describing the dedication of the Lord to His work as Messiah; and what more natural than that he should now speak of His entrance thereupon? Besides, it is entirely according to his custom to specify dates: he has already mentioned that of the ministry of John, and those of the birth, circumcision, presentation in the temple, and first Passover of Jesus; and he now indicates to his readers the date of the things , Act 1:1. In any case this construction is preferable to the exposition: incipiebat antem Jesus annorum esse fere triginta, Jesus began to be about thirty years of age.17 If Luke had meant to say this, he would certainly have expressed himself very obscurely.

About thirty years of age.All attempts at fixing an exact chronology of our Lords life, from this indication of Luke, have split upon this word about ().18 We are only informed by it, that when Jesus began His public ministry, He was not much under, or much above, thirty years of age. This was, according to Num 4:3; Num 4:47, the age at which the Levitical services were entered upon, though undoubtedly there was no need of applying such a law to the Lords entrance upon His work as Messiah. On the other hand, however, it was at the age of thirty that the Jewish scribes were accustomed to enter upon their office as teachers; and John the Baptist also commenced his ministry at this age. Perhaps the contemporaries of Jesus might not have been disposed to recognize the authority of a teacher who had not attained the age appointed to the Levites.

Luk 3:23-38. Being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Eli, etc.We prefer including also in the parenthesis. The passage then stands, , being the son of Eli, i.e., though supposed to be the son of Joseph. This manner of introducing the parenthesis will show at once that we agree with those who consider that, while Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, Luke gives that of Mary. Compare the important remarks of Lange on Matt. i. [vol. i. p. 48 ff.]. The difficulties of this view are not unappreciated by us, but still greater difficulties attend every other hypothesis; whether that of the Levirate marriage, or that of the total irreconcilability of the two genealogies. Considered in itself, it was far more likely that Luke would give the genealogy of Mary than that of her husband. She is the principal figure throughout his early chapters; while Joseph occupies a far more subordinate position than in Matthew. He is very explicit in narrating that Mary became the mother of the Holy Child, through the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit; why then should he, who was not writing for Jews, give the descent of His foster-father, when he is intent upon asserting, that the Lord was not related to Joseph according to the flesh? He is expressly contrasting His true descent from Eli, the father of Mary, with His supposed descent from Joseph; and Mary is simply passed over, because it was not customary among the Jews to insert the names of females in their genealogies. We find it then here stated, that Jesus was the descendant of Eli, viz., through Mary, his daughter. It is true that the word is used throughout to denote the relation of father and son, not of grandson and grandfather; but Luke was obliged, this once, to use this word in another sense, since through the miraculous birth, which he had himself described, one member in this line of male ancestors was missing. The , too, at the end, shows that need not, in this passage, be invariably supposed to apply to physical descent. If Mary became the mother of our Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit, He could have no male ancestors but hers, and the name of Eli, His grandfather, must stand immediately, before that of Jesus, in His genealogy, since the introduction of the mothers name was not customary, and that of the father impossible in this instance.

The difficulties raised against this view are easily met. Is it urged, 1. that the Jews did not keep genealogies of women?the answer is, that this is the genealogy of Eli, the father of Mary, and grandfather of Jesus. 2. That Mary, being a cousin of Elisabeth, must have been a daughter of Aaron, and not of the tribe of Judah? But her mother might have been of the house of Aaron, and related to Elisabeth, while her father was descended from the royal line. 3. That, according to an ancient Jewish tradition, one Joachim was the father of Mary? But this tradition is quite unworthy of belief, and is also contradicted by another, which asserts that Mary, the daughter of Eli, suffered martyrdom in Gehenna (see Lightfoot ad Luc. iii. 23). 4. That while the genealogies of Luke and Matthew have nothing else in common, they both contain the names of Salathiel and Zerubbabel? We answer, that both Mary and Joseph seem to have descended from Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel. The fact, that this latter is called by Luke the son of Neri, and by Matthew the son of Jeconiah, may be explained by supposing a Levirate marriage, the name of the natural father being given by Luke, and that of the father according to the law, by Matthew. Besides, why might not both lines meet at least once, during a period of so many centuries? Jeconiah was carried captive to Babylon at the age of eighteen, and remained there a prisoner thirty-seven years; Neri, his brother (Mat 1:11), would then, in his place, raise up seed unto his brother, and become the natural father of Salathiel, whose son Zerubbabel had several children, from one of whom (Abiud) descended Joseph, and from another (Rhesa), Eli, the father of Mary. (For the defence of this hypothesis, compare also the treatise of Wieseler, in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, ii. 1845, and the article, Genealogy of Jesus, in the Bibl. Dictionaries.)

On comparing the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, we are immediately struck with the differences between them. The former is written in the descending, the latter in the ascending line: the former extends to Abraham, the common ancestor of the Jewish nation; the latter to Adam, the common parent of mankind: the former is divided into three parts, each of fourteen generations, and thus exhibits a more artificial arrangement, while it wants the completeness which we discover in the latter. Both tables give fourteen names from Abraham to David; while from David to the Babylonian captivity, Matthew gives fourteen, and Luke twenty-one names. Symmetrical arrangement causes Matthew to omit certain names; while a desire for historical completeness is more strongly manifested in Luke, who, during his stay with Paul at Jerusalem (Act 21:17), might easily have found opportunities of obtaining important particulars concerning Mary and her genealogy. The universal character of his genealogy is explained by the fact, that his Gospel was not written, as that of Matthew, for the Christians of Palestine. It presents no other difficulties, except the mention that Zerubbabel was the son of Rhesa, while 1Ch 3:19-21 gives very different names. It has been, however, supposed, that the last-named statement is less accurate, and that the original text has been corrupted in this place.

The historical authority of this genealogy has been vainly contested, on the ground of a statement of Eusebius (H. E. i. 7), that the genealogies of the distinguished Jews were burnt in the time of Herod. This statement bears on its very surface marks of internal improbability; while the authority of J. Africanus, which is cited in its support, is highly problematical. Josephus, too, says nothing of his measure, and publishes his own genealogy, as it existed in the public registries. Besides, in this case, the taxing (Luk 2:2) would have been impracticable; while the same informant (J. Africanus) states, that some few, among whom he expressly mentions the family of our Lord, prepared genealogical tables from copies, or from memory. The apocryphal Gospel of James also speaks of the existence of the genealogies, as a thing publicly known. See Thilo, Cod. Apocryph. N. T. 1, p. 166.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The often contested descent of Mary from David is raised above all possibility of refutation by the genealogy of Luke. The Lord Jesus was therefore naturally, as well as legally, descended from David; and this descent is with perfect justice made prominent by both Peter and Paul (Act 2:30; Act 13:23; Rom 1:3; 2Ti 2:8); while Jesus designates Himself the Son of David, Mar 12:35-37. This descent from David was important to the Jews of those days, as one of the legitimate proofs of His Messiahship, and is still of the highest significance. It is a fresh proof of the faithfulness of Him who performed the promises which He had sworn to David and His seed, and a specimen of His divine arrangement, which may well fill us with adoring admiration. As the Christ could only be born in Israel, the nation which alone worshipped the true God, so was it also necessary that He, in whom the ideal of the old theocracy was to be realized, should be a descendant of the man after Gods own heart, under whose sceptre the theocratic nation had reached the climax of its prosperity. This royal origin of our Lord is the key to the psychological explanation of the royal and exalted character, continually impressed upon His words, deeds, and silence. It makes us understand also, with what perfect right He could, even in His glorified state, declare that He was not only the bright and morning star, but also the root and offspring of David. (Rev 22:16; comp. Luk 5:5.)

2. The genealogy of Jesus stands here immediately after His baptism. As soon as Luke has related how He was acknowledged by His heavenly Father as His Son, he proceeds to narrate who He really was related to, according to the flesh.Starke.
3. The genealogy of Luke offers complete proof that the Lord was very man, the promised seed of David; and also, by human descent, the Son of God, as the first Adam is therein said to have been.

4. The second Adam, like the first, sprang immediately from a creative act of Omnipotence. The Messiah belongs not to Israel alone, but to the whole world of sinners. The prophetic word (Mic 5:2), that His goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, applies, in a certain sense, even to His human origin.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The genealogical tree of Christ: 1. The root; 2. the branch; 3. the crown; 4. the fruit of His race.The genealogy in connection with the work of redemption: It presents us: 1. with the image of humanity, which needs redemption; 2. with the greatness of Christ, who undertakes redemption; 3. with the glory of God, who ordains redemption.The first and the second Adam: 1. Their natural relationship; 2. the infinite difference in their relations, (a) to God, (b) to man, (c) to each other.The wonderful difference between the apparent and the actual in the person of the Redeemer. Luke gives us a glimpse of it in His descent; but it strikes us also when we consider the lowly outward appearance and exalted dignity: (a) Of His person; (b) of His work; (c) of His kingdom; (d) of His future.The great importance of the Bible genealogies.Christ the aim and end of the Bible genealogies.Gods faithfulness in the performance of His ancient promises.Jesus, the son of Adam: 1. The Son of God became a son of Adam; 2. the Son of Adam truly the Son of God, the promised Redeemer.Concealment of the true descent of Jesus, even at the beginning of His public ministry.The miraculously begotten Son of Mary suffers Himself to be supposed to be the son of Joseph.For further ideas, see Lange on Mat 1:17 [vol. i. pp. 50, 51]. Consult also Kppen: Die Bibel, ein Werk gttlicher Weisheit, i. 2640; ii. 199, etc., on the value of these, and the other genealogies.

Arndt:The significance of the genealogy of Jesus: 1. For His person; 2. for His work. This remarkable genealogical tree stands forth, a unique memorial of the faith and expectation of the Old Testament saints. To our imaginations, its boughs and branches had been vocal for centuries with the words: Oh that Thou wouldest rend the heavens, etc., while tears of thankfulness and ecstasy water its root, and these names, which brighten, like stars of heaven, the history of Israel, seem moistened with the dew-drops of joy and ardent desire. Oh, not one single word of Holy Scripture was written in vain! etc.

Footnotes:

[13]Luk 3:23. , And Jesus Himself was about thirty years old (or of age) when He began (His ministry). So Tyndale, Wesley, Norton, Whiting, de Wette, Meyer, Alford, etc. The rendering of Cranmer, the Genevan and the Authorized Versions is ungrammatical and makes unmeaning. We may say ,or , to enter into the thirtieth year, but not . . adds an explanation, and hence is put last. We must supply to preach, or to teach, or His ministry, comp. Act 1:1; Act 1:22. So Euthymius: . , .

[14]Luk 3:23 ff.The insertion which (who) was of the E. V., in this verse and throughout this section, is heavy and unnecessary, and hence properly omitted in the translations of Wesley, Campbell, Sharpe, Kendrick, Whiting, the Revised N. T. of the Am. B. U., etc. If it be retained, it should be italicized rather than the son.

[15]Luk 3:23 ff.The son. This is implied in the Greek genitive , etc., and need not be italicized.

[16]Luk 3:23 ff.In the spelling of these proper names there is considerable variation in the MSS. and ancient transl., but not of sufficient account to justify a deviation from the Received Text. In a popular revision of the English Version, the spelling of Hebrew names here, as in the genealogy of Matthew, should be conformed to the Hebrew spelling, as in the E. V. of the O. T. Hence Eli for Heli, Naggai for Nagge, Shimei for Semei, Judah for Juda, Johanah for Joanna, Zerubbabel for Zorobabel, etc. See the Crit. Note on Matthew 1 vol. i. p. 48.P. S.]

[17][So Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and the authorized Engl. Version. Comp. my Critical Note 1 on Luk 3:23; also Meyer in loc.P. S.]

[18][For a full discussion of the date of Christs baptism, the reader is referred to Andrews: The Life of our Lord, etc., pp. 2235.P. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

(23) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (24) Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, (25) Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, (26) Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, (27) Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, (28) Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, (29) Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, (30) Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, (31) Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, (32) Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, (33) Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Pharez, which was the son of Juda, (34) Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, (35) Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, (36) Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, (37) Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, (38) Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

I detain the Reader, at the very entrance on this genealogy concerning Christ, to call his particular attention to the manner in which Luke introduceth Joseph, as the supposed father of Christ. Than which form of words, nothing can be stronger in proof, that it was a mere supposition only, and not in reality. And the insertion in Luke’s Gospel of the direct descent of Christ after the flesh, in a regular order from Adam to Joseph, as Matthew had before done from Abraham to Mary, was evidently intended for no other purpose than as a testimony to the great point, that Christ was the seed of the Woman. With Joseph, Christ had no connection. But it was a common mode of expression with the Jews, to call the man father which brought up a child. Hence Joseph became the supposed father. And if the Reader will compare Mat 1:16 . with what is said here, Luk 3:23 , he will discover somewhat of this very custom. In Matthew, Joseph is said to have been begotten of Jacob, so that Jacob was his real father. But according to Luke, Heli was his father, and so he was, that is his reputed father, by virtue of Joseph being betrothed to Mary his daughter. So that these things explain the several expressions, according to Jewish customs.

In respect to the life of Christ, at his entrance upon his ministry, being then about thirty years of age; I have already, in the former part of this chapter, offered a short observation upon it. In addition, I would only just remark, that the precise period, for Christ being made manifest unto Israel, had been so strikingly marked from the beginning, that to this point several weighty circumstances evidently had reference. The law enjoined, that from thirty years, and upward, until fifty years, the sons of Levi should enter into the host. Num 4:2-3 . Jesus, though not of Levi, but of Judah, yet being Him, in whom the Priesthood centered, and was completed, shall therefore so enter. And although his ministry extended but to the half week of Daniel’s prophecy, that is, just three years and a half; yet so much worn was He, by hard service, cruel treatment, and hard fare, that the Jews supposed him to have been fifty. Dan 9:27 ; Joh 8:57 . And in type also, Joseph is said, when prefiguring Christ, to have gone at that age in before Pharaoh. Gen 41:46 . Some have gone further in discovering, or in supposing they have discovered, many shadows in scripture, of this substance of Christ’s ministry, in relation to the period of three years and a half. See Dan 12:7 . with Rev 12:14 ; Jas 5:17 . with Luk 4:25 . But I presume not to decide upon the subject

In respect to this genealogy, I do not think it necessary to enlarge. The correctness of it is unquestionable; and the intention of it is plain. It is essential, yea most essential to the Church’s peace and welfare, to be well informed, and as the Apostle saith, to remember also that Jesus Christ is of the seed of David. 2Ti 2:8 . So that in going over this, it is not, as may be said of many, giving heed to fables, and endless genealogies which minister questions, rather than godly edifying: but here is a subject, which leads to the fountain head of mercy, in tracing Him, who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

V

BEGINNINGS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

Broadus’ Harmony pages 5-6 and Mat 1:1-17 ; Luk 1:5-80 ; Luk 3:23-38 .

We have noted in a previous chapter John’s and Paul’s account of the divine side of our Lord’s existence, personality and activities before he became flesh. Now we consider, in Matthew, Luke, and Paul, his human side, human antecedents, human birth, and early life. We find Matthew’s account in Matthew 1-2, and Luke’s account in Luke 1-2 with the closing paragraph of Luk 3 .

Matthew’s incidents are his genealogy, birth, the visit of the magi, the flight into Egypt, the massacre of the babes at Bethlehem, the return to the land of Israel, and resettlement at Nazareth in Galilee.

Luke’s incidents are the announcement to Zacharias of the birth of his son, John the Baptist, our Lord’s forerunner; the announcement to Mary of the birth of our Lord; Mary’s visit to Elisabeth; the birth of John the Baptist according to announcement; the birth of our Lord at Bethlehem; the announcement to the shepherds of that birth; the circumcision of our Lord; his presentation in the Temple with attendant circumstances ; the return to Nazareth; the development there of his childhood; the visit to the Temple when our Lord was twelve years old; the return to Nazareth and his development; into manhood; and his genealogy.

On this entire section we submit several general observations:

1. Matthew’s entire account is written from the viewpoint of Joseph, and for Jews. His genealogy is the genealogy of Joseph according to the legal Jewish method. Gabriel’s appearance to Joseph is to explain Mary’s condition. Indeed, all the four supernatural directions for the family movements come in dreams to Joseph. Every incident and every Old Testament quotation conspire to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the foretold and long-expected King of the Jews.

2. Luke’s entire account is written from Mary’s viewpoint and to show our Lord’s broader relations to humanity. His genealogy is real, not legal. It is Mary’s genealogy, not Joseph’s, our Lord’s relations to Joseph being only a Jewish, legal supposition. While indeed it shows that Mary was a Jewess) really descended from David and Abraham, yet her genealogy extends back to Adam, in order to prove that her Son was the second Adam, and literally fulfilled the first gospel promise, “The seed of the woman [not of the man] shall bruise the serpent’s head.”

It is to Mary, Gabriel announces her conception of a Son, by the Holy Spirit, who because thus sired shall be holy, the Son of God.

It is to Mary the angel announces the condition of Elisabeth, and thus prepares the way for Mary’s visit to Elisabeth. All of Luke’s other incidents are those which Mary “kept in her heart.” The conjecture that Luke’s genealogy is also traced through Joseph is puerile in itself, utterly gratuitous, and at war with Luke’s whole plan. It is to invent a difficulty and then invite the harmonists of the two genealogies to settle it. Why should they be harmonized? They have different starting points (a legal son, a real son) and different objectives (Abraham Adam); they are not even parallel lines, since they meet and part.

3. We here confront what Paul calls “the great mystery of Godliness” the incarnation of our Lord. Isaiah, who had already foretold his virgin birth, in a clear prophecy concerning him, says, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:6 ). Quoting Isaiah, and because the virgin mother is with child by the Holy Ghost, Matthew says, “His name shall be called Immanuel (God with us).” In explanation of the way a virgin can become a mother, Luke’s angel says to Mary, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the Holy One who is begotten of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Mark says, “Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” John says, “The Logos which was God, was manifested and became flesh.” Paul says, “He who was the effulgence of God’s glory and the very image of his substance,” (Heb 1:3 ) “who existed in the form of God . . . was made in the likeness of man (Phi 2:6-8 ) was born of a woman” (Gal 4:4 ). Not otherwise could he escape the hereditary taint of Adam’s sin (Gen 5:3 ); not otherwise could he fulfil the protevangel, “the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head” (Gen 3:15 ); not otherwise could he be the Second Adam, the second head of the race (Rom 5:12-21 ; 1Co 15:45-49 ).

Grant this one miracle, the greatest and most inclusive, and all others naturally follow. Deny this one, and there is no need to deny or even consider others (1Jn 4:1-3 ).

4. Only twice do we find in the Bible the phrase, “The book of the generations” applied respectively to “The first Adam” (Gen 5:1 ), and to the Second Adam (Mat 1:1 ). And concerning this Second Adam, well might Isaiah inquire: “Who shall declare his generation,” (common version, Isa 53:8 ) especially since “His name shall be Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:6 ).

5. Nothing more commends the inspiration of the simplicity and reticence of this account of our Lord’s infancy, childhood and growth to manhood, than to contrast it with the silly and incredible fables invented in the early Christian centuries to gratify a prurient curiosity concerning a long period of our Lord’s life on which, beyond the few incidents recorded, our Gospels are silent. Nature, as well as grace, draws a modest veil over the period of conception, gestation, parturition, and development. Not only have these bald inventions concerning the infancy and childhood of our Lord disfigured the image in the mind naturally produced by the simple Bible story, but tradition, ever-increasing in imposture and lying, ad nauseum, has buried the few real incidents recorded under an accretion of fanciful enlargements, e.g., the incident of the magi, and even the blasphemies subverting the gospel and changing the very plan of salvation, e.g., the Mariology and Mariolatry developed from our simple gospel story of Mary by the Romanists of succeeding centuries.

6. Beyond the few incidents recorded of the first thirty years of our Lord’s preparation for his public work, this is every syllable of the gospel history: Luke puts in four pregnant sentences the whole period, (a) concerning the development of his childhood, “And the child grew and waxed strong, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him” (Luk 2:40 ). (b) After the consciousness of his messiahship in the Temple, when he was twelve years old, “He went down with them (Mary and Joseph) and came to Nazareth; and he was subject to them” (Luk 2:51 ). (c) Referring back to his habit of attending the house of religious instruction at Nazareth, Luke later says, “He came to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read” (Luk 4:16 ); (d) Concerning his development to manhood: “And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luk 2:52 ). (e) Mark says that by occupation he was a carpenter (Luk 6:3 ).

These are all the direct references. But we may easily gather from his subsequent history that he had studied the book of nature in its plants, flowers, fruits, birds, animals, soil and its cultivation, its crops, harvests and vintages; that he was a lover of children and close observer of their plays; that he was familiar with the customs of the family and of society; that he was well acquainted with the religious sects and political parties of his country and its relation of subjection to Rome. It is evident also from his movements that he thoroughly understood all the variations of government in the Herod family.

As to literary attainments, apart from the evident religious training of a Jewish child, we know that he could read and speak fluently in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. He read and quoted at will and discerningly from both the Hebrew and the Greek versions of the Old Testament. Mark preserves and interprets many of his Aramaic expressions.

7. We should commence Matthew’s genealogy thus: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, called Immanuel (God with us).” And, allowing Paul to supplement Luke’s genealogy thus: “The Second Adam, who is the Lord from heaven, Jesus Christ himself (supposed son of Joseph) was the son of Heli,” and so on back to the first Adam.

8. In these two accounts of our Lord’s infancy are eight distinct annunciations, adapted in time, place, medium, means, and circumstances to the recipient, together with eight other supernatural events.

(1) The annunciation by the angel Gabriel, in a vision, to Zacharias, ministering in the Temple, of the birth of John the Baptist, the forerunner of our Lord, and of Zacharias’ dumbness until the event (Luk 1:5 f).

(2) Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary of the birth of our Lord (Luk 1:26 f).

(3) The annunciation to Elisabeth of the presence of the appointed mother of our Lord, by her unborn baby’s leaping for joy (Luk 1:41 f).

(4) The angel’s annunciation to Joseph, in a dream, of the supernatural conception of Mary (Mat 1:18 f).

(5) The angel’s annunciation, in a vision, to the shepherds near Bethlehem, of the birth of our Lord (Luk 2:8 f).

(6) The Spirit’s annunciation to Simeon that he should not see death until he had seen the Christ (Luk 2:26 ).

(7) Simeon’s annunciation, by prophetic inspiration, to Mary concerning her Son, and concerning the sword that would pierce her own soul (Luk 2:34-35 ).

(8) The annunciation to the magi, in the far East, by the appearance of a star, that the foretold and long-expected King of the Jews was born (Mat 2:1 f).

The eight attending supernatural events are, the prophetic utterances by Zacharias, Elisabeth, Mary, and Anna, the three additional dreams of Joseph and the one of the magi. Thus there are three vision to Zacharias, Mary, and the shepherds; five dreams four of Joseph and one of the magi; one annunciation by the Spirit to Simeon, one of Simeon to Mary by inspiration, one by a star, one by the leaping of an unborn babe, besides the prophetic inspiration of four.

9. In Luke’s account of the beginnings are five famous hymns, or the foundations from which they were later developed;

(1) “The Hail Mary,” developed by the Romanists from a combination of the angel’s salutation to Mary (Luk 1:29 ) and Elisabeth’s salutation to Mary (Luk 1:42 ), with some extraneous additions.

(2) “The Magnificat,” or Mary’s own hymn (Luk 1:46-55 ).

(3) “The Benedictus,” or the song of Zacharias (Luk 1:68-79 ).

(4) “Gloria in Excelsis,” developed from the song of the angels (Luke 2-14).

5) “Nunc Dimittis,” developed from the words of Simeon (Luk 2:29-32 ).

10. The gospel histories teach concerning Mary, the mother of our Lord, that she was a modest, pious, but poor Jewish maiden, of the line of David, betrothed to Joseph, a just man, also of the line of David. She was endued with grace, to become the virgin mother of our Lord, and this supernatural conception was by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Consequently her Son would be God’s Son, and not man’s. Being God’s Son, he would be born holy, unstained through hereditary taint, and as he was the only human being so born, he is called the Only Begotten Son of the Father. Because of her selection to become the mother of our Lord, all generations would call her blessed. Her marriage to Joseph before the birth of this child constituted him legally, though not really, a son of Joseph. In all these things Mary humbly submitted herself to the divine will. She piously kept in her heart all the attending prodigies, circumstances, and prophecies of his nativity and childhood. While married to Joseph, she knew him not until after the birth of her divine Son, but afterward lived with him in all marital relations, bearing four sons, whose names are given, besides daughters not named (Mar 6:3 ). After Joseph’s death, she followed her son, Jesus, with his younger half-brothers and sisters. From the record it is evident that more than once she was not without fault. On the whole, however, the impression left on the mind by the history is most charming. A maiden, chaste, modest, pious, and meekly submissive to God’s will, a true wife, a devoted, self-denying mother, patiently bearing all the sorrows attendant upon being the mother of her Saviour son. Well might Simeon say to her, “Yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul,” on which prophecy has been written a book of merit entitled The Sorrows of Mary.

At the death of Jesus, her other sons being poor and un- believers, she was taken to the home of John the apostle, in Jerusalem. What an unspeakable pity that religious superstition has foisted upon this simple, charming, gospel story of earth’s most honored woman, a monstrous Mariology of human invention, developed later into a blasphemous Mariolatry, which makes her usurp the place of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. As this hideous parasite on the gospel story of Mary roots in our lesson, we here give a summary of the invented.

MARIOLOGY MERGED INTO MARIOLATRY

The exaggeration of the meaning of the words: “All generations shall call me blessed.” This blessedness, because a privilege, was declared by our Lord himself to be inferior to the blessings on personal obedience and service (Luk 11:27-28 ), and because this was a fleshly relation to our Lord, he declared it to be inferior to spiritual relations, which all may share (Mar 3:31-35 ).

Mary was a perpetual virgin, that is, never knowing a man, and being the mother of only one child, Jesus. This was the earliest of the doctrines in point of time, and some Protestants today, for sentimental reasons, hold to it.

Mary free from actual sin. This freedom from actual sin, originally at least, was attributed to the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, supposed to be exerted either after she was conceived or before she was born, as Jeremiah and John the Baptist were supposed to be sanctified, or else at the time the Holy Spirit came upon her at the conception of Christ.

Mary free from original sin. This was a late development of doctrine concerning Mary. There was no official and authoritative form of it before the sixteenth century. The Council of Trent, A. D. 1570, closed its decree on original sin with these words: “This same holy synod doth nevertheless declare that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Mary, the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews.” This official deliverance is a positive declaration of Mary’s freedom from original sin, and by the term “immaculate,” would seem to declare her exempt from actual sin. The doctrine, however, culminates in positive form in the decree promulgated to the Roman Catholic world by Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1854. In this decree the Pope claims: First, that he pronounces, declares, and defines “under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost;” second, that what he sets forth is by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and in his own authority. The matter thus decreed and promulgated is as follows:

“The doctrine which holds the blessed virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was revealed by God, and is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.” The decree closes with the double anathema: First, that any who presume to even think in their hearts contrary to this deliverance stand self-condemned, have made shipwreck concerning the faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the church. Second, that they subject themselves to the penalties ordained by law, if by word or writing, or any other external means, they dare to signify what they think in their hearts.

You will observe, particularly, that this decree affirms that the doctrine of Mary’s freedom from original sin was revealed by God. The natural presumption is that this revelation is to be found in the Holy Scriptures. In this document the Pope does not claim that it was a special revelation to him, but that he is inspired to pronounce, declare, and define past revelations.

If God revealed it in the Holy Scriptures, it is strange that we cannot find it.

This doctrine of Mary’s freedom from original sin, which thus culminated, historically, December 8, 1854, may be said to have crystallized July 18, 1870, when the Vatican Council thus declared the infallibility of the Pope:

“It is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church, by the divine assistance promised him in the blessed Peter, he is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his church should be endowed for defining doctrines, faith and morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church.”

She is the Mediatrix between Christ and man, as Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and man. In other words, this element of the doctrines makes Mary take the place of the Holy Spirit) that is, we must reach Christ through Mary The development of the doctrine is shown in various works of art. For example, there are paintings which represent Christ as seated, and Mary below him, then later a painting of Christ and Mary on a level; and finally a painting representing Mary above Christ, who is angry at the world, and Mary is beseeching his favor for the world.

Mary, not Jesus, bruises the serpent’s head, or destroys Satan. As the preceding element of this doctrine puts Mary in the place of the Holy Spirit, so this element makes her take Christ’s office.

Mary the queen of heaven.

Mary the fountain of all grace, received by man and the only hope of salvation. This element puts her in the Father’s place.

Mary an object of worship.

Mary’s body was never allowed to see corruption, but was taken up to heaven, glorified, as the body of Christ, or that of Enoch or Elijah. This last element of the doctrine, the assumption of Mary, has not been formally put forth by Pope or Council, but is propagated and defended in the standard Romanist literature.

Any thoughtful man, considering these doctrines concerning Mary, must see that they made a radical, vital, and fundamental change of the gospel as understood by all Protestants and constitute another gospel, which is not the gospel. It makes the Romanist Church the church of Mary, rather than the church of Christ. Indeed, if we add its traditions concerning the See of Rome and Peter, the name should be: The Romanist Church of the Traditions concerning Mary and Peter. It would be easy to show that each of these elements of doctrine was transferred, for reasons of expediency, from heathen mythology and worship.

The question naturally arises, What scriptures do they cite for these stupendous claims? In support of the perpetual virginity of Mary they cite Eze 44:1-3 : “Then he brought me back by way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. And Jehovah said unto me, This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it; for Jehovah, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut. As for the prince, he shall sit therein as prince to eat bread before Jehovah; he shall enter by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.” They claim that this language is typical of and applicable to Mary’s perpetual virginity. Some of them quote the Song of Son 4:12 , as follows: “A garden shut up is my sister, my bride; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.” So far as I know, these are the only scriptures cited that seem to have a positive bearing on the doctrine.

Negatively, they contend that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in Mar 6 and other places were not the children of Joseph and Mary, but of Mary’s sister, hence cousins of our Lord. Some Protestants who hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary claim that these were children of Joseph by a former marriage, therefore older than our Lord. Both Romanists and Protestants who hold to this doctrine cite Joh 19:25-27 , where Christ on the cross consigns Mary to John’s are, and argue from this that Mary had no son of her own other than Christ. They forget the extreme poverty of the family of Joseph, including himself, Mary, and all of the children, and that these younger half-brothers of our Lord were not at this time believers in Christ, as is evident from Joh 7:5 . We have already shown that John possessed wealth and a home of his own at Jerusalem, which Mary and her sons did not have.

Of Mary’s freedom from actual sin, they cite the Song of Son 4:7 : “Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee,” and also from the apocryphal book of Wisdom 1:4 : “For wisdom will not enter into the malicious soul nor dwell in a body subject to sins.”

In support of the theory that Mary mediates between man and Christ, they cite Joh 2:3 , where Mary makes known to her Son the need of wine at the marriage of Cana of Galilee.

To maintain that Mary, not Jesus, bruises the serpent’s head, the Romanist Bible, both the Vulgate and their English version, makes Gen 3:15 read: “She shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise her heel.”

To support the doctrine that Mary is the mother and fountain of all grace to man, they quote Luk 1:28 , and render it: “Hail, full of grace!”

In support of the assumption that Mary is the queen of heaven, their commentators cite Rev 12:1 , and claim that it is an allusion to “our blessed lady.”

In replying to these various items of Mariology and Mariolatry, it is fairly to be inferred from Mat 1:25 that Joseph did know Mary as a husband after the birth of Christ, and it certainly best accords with the obvious meaning of Mar 6:3 , and various other references, that the four brothers named are real brothers, and not cousins. That Mary was not free from actual sin is evident by our Lord’s rebuke of her at Luk 2:48-49 ; Joh 2:4 ; Mar 3:21 connected with 31-35. There is no scriptural support at all relevant to the matter in hand of Mary’s freedom from original sin. The quotations cited by Romanists are, on their face, irrelevant. The assumption that Mary is the fountain of all grace evidently misinterprets the words of the angel, “Hail, Mary, endued with grace.” It is grace then and there conferred, and not original source of grace. It indeed shows that she was a daughter of grace, not its mother. That Mary’s body never saw corruption is a fabrication without any foundation whatever. To make the symbolic woman of Rev 12:1 to be a real woman, whether Mary or any other woman, is a gross violation of the law of interpretation of symbols. You might just as well make the woman in purple and scarlet riding upon the seven-headed,

THE MEMBERS OF THE HEROD FAMILY NAMED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Herod himself is “Herod the king” named in Mat 2:3-19 , ruler of the Jews at Christ’s birth. He was surname’ “The Great” and was really a man of great capacity in public affairs, and in diplomacy successfully overreached both Pompey and Julius Caesar, and both Anthony and Augustus Caesar and thwarted Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt. But he was . monster in cruelty and as bloody a tyrant as ever sat upon throne. His father was Antipater, the Idumean or Edomite, and his mother an Ishmaelite. Thus in the person of Herod, Ishmael and Esau sat upon the throne of Isaac and Jacob. His death is recorded in Mat 2 . He had about ten wives and many children. By his last will, subject to Rome’s approval, he divided his realm among three sons, disinheriting all his other children whom he had not murdered.

His children. Archelaus, named in Mat 2:22 , his son by his fourth wife, was, according to Herod’s will, made king of Judea and Samaria. Rome did not approve of his title of king, but allowed him to be called ethnarch for nine years, and then for good cause removed and banished him, and converted Judea and Samaria into an imperial province under procurators appointed by Caesar. Pontius Pilate, an appointee of Tiberius Caesar, was procurator during the years of our Lord’s public ministry.

Another son, Herod Antipas, older brother of Archelaus, by the same mother, was made tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. (See Luk 3:1 .) This was the Herod that beheaded John the Baptist (Mar 6:17-29 ), whom Jesus called “that fox,” and to whom our Lord was sent for trial by Pilate. He held his office during the whole of our Lord’s life after his return from Egypt. He built the city of Tiberias on the sea of Galilee, and was the second husband of that Herodias who caused the death of John the Baptist. This marriage was a threefold sin – his own wife was yet living, the woman’s husband was yet living, and she was his niece.

The oldest surviving son of Herod was named Herod Philip, disinherited by his father. He lived at Rome. The New Testament makes only an indirect allusion to him as Philip the brother of Herod Antipas, and the husband of Herodias (Mar 6:17-18 ).

Herod’s son by his fifth wife was also named Herod Philip, and he is the tetrarch of the Northern part of Palestine, called in Luk 3:1 “the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis.” He built the cities of Bethsaida-Julius, and Caesarea Philippi. He was the best of all the ruling sons of Herod.

It must be noted how several movements of our Lord were affected by these three sons of Herod. Because of Archelaus his parents took him from Judea to Galilee. Because of the unfriendliness of Herod Antipas he more than once removed from Galilee to the tetrarchy of Herod Philip. This Herod Philip, the tetrarch, married Salome, the dancing girl, who danced off the head of John the Baptist (Mar 6:2-28 ). She was his niece, the daughter of his brother, Herod Philip I, named above.

Herod’s grandchildren. First, Herod Agrippa 1. This is Herod the king, of Act 12:1-4 , who killed the apostle James, John’s brother, and imprisoned Peter, and whose awful death at Caesarea is described in Act 12:19-23 . This Herod ruled over all Palestine like his grandfather.

Second, Herodias, the wicked woman who left her husband, Philip, and married his brother, Herod Antipas, and brought about the death of John the Baptist because he denounced the iniquitous marriage (Mar 6:17-28 ). It is said that when the head of John was brought to her by her daughter, she drove her bodkin through the faithful tongue that had dared to denounce the infamy of her marriage.

Herod’s great grandchildren. First, Salome, the dancing girl named in Mar 6 . Second, Herod Agrippa II. This is the titular king, Agrippa, before whom Paul spoke (Act 25:13 ). Third, Bernice, his sister (Act 25:23 ). Fourth, Drusilla, another sister, who married Festus (Act 24:24 ). Of these the last six named were descended through Herod’s second wife, Mariarnne, the Maccabean princess.

THE NEW TESTAMENT AND CAESAR As in the Old Testament “Pharaoh” is a title of all the Egyptian rulers, so always in the New Testament “Caesar” is a title of the Roman ruler. In the New Testament about twenty-seven times “Caesar” is so used, without the name of the particular Caesar. Twelve Caesars ruled at Rome from the birth of Christ to the close of the canon of the New Testament, and perhaps one more, Trajan, when John the apostle died. The names of the twelve in order, and the dates of their reigns, are as follows:

Augustus 31 B.C. to A.D. 14

Tiberius A.D. 14-37

Gaius A.D. 37-41

Claudius A.D. 41-54

Nero A.D. 54-68

Galba A.D. 68-69

Otho A.D. 69

Vitellius A.D. 69

Vespasian A.D. 69-79

Titus A.D. 79-81

Domitian A.D. 81-96

Nerva A.D. 96-98

Three of these are named in the New Testament: Augustus, Luk 2:1 ; Tiberius, Luk 3:1 ; Claudius, Act 11:28 ; Act 18:2 . Nero is referred to but not named (Act 25:8 ).

QUESTIONS

1. What sections of Matthew and Luke are devoted to our Lord’s early life?

2. What are the incidents given in Matthew?

3. In Luke?

4. From whose viewpoint is written all this section of Matthew?

5. From whose viewpoint Luke’s section?

6. How does this account for the apparent discrepancy between their genealogies?

7. How does Paul characterize the incarnation of our Lord?

8. What passage from Isaiah does Matthew quote and apply to the incarnation?

9. What name of the child does Matthew give as expressive of the mystery?

10. What other passage from Isaiah gives names of the child expressive of this mystery?

11. How does the angel, in Luke, explain the mystery of a virgin becoming a mother and the resultant nature of the child?

12. Give Mark’s name of this wonderful child.

13. How does Paul state the matter?

14. How does such a son escape hereditary depravity?

15. How does this alone fulfil the first gospel promise in Genesis?

16. According to Paul, what is the relation of Adam to Jesus? (See last clause of Rom 5:14 .)

17. Give in brief Paul’s argument on this relation in Rom 5:12-21 . Ans. As through one trespass (not many) of one man (not one woman) sin, condemnation and death came upon all his fleshly descendants. So through one act of righteousness (death on the cross) of one man (the vicarious Substitute) justification, unto eternal life came upon all his spiritual descendants.

18. How does Paul further contrast the first Adam and his image transmitted to his fleshly descendants with the Second Adam and his image borne by his spiritual descendants? (See 1Co 15:45-49 .)

19. What then may we say of this miracle of the incarnation?

20. Give the significant Bible usage of the phrase “The book of the generation.”

21. Contrast the account of our Lord’s infancy and childhood, given by Matthew and Luke, with the human inventions of traditions concerning the same period.

22. What two sentences of Luke, one concerning the development of his childhood, the other concerning his development into manhood, give the record of most of our Lord’s earthly life?

23. What other sentence of Luke tells the whole story of his obedience to the Fifth Commandment?

24. What phrase of Luke discloses a religious habit of all his early life?

25. What question recorded by Mark reveals his occupation in all that early life?

26. What may we gather from the history of his subsequent life, as to his studies, observation and general information?

27. As to his literary attainments, how do you prove that he knew and spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

28. How should you commence Matthew’s genealogy (allowing him self to supplement) and Luke’s (allowing Paul to supplement)?

29. In the two accounts of our Lord’s birth and infancy are eight annunciations, with eight other supernatural events, adapted in time, place, medium, means, and circumstances to the several recipients: give them, in order, and then show which three came by vision, which five by dreams, which one by the Holy Spirit, which one by an unborn babe, and which four by inspiration.

30. In Luke’s account alone are five historic hymns, or the foundations from which they were developed. Name them in order.

31. Give the substance of the gospel teaching concerning Mary.

32. Give the several items of the monstrous Mariology and blasphemous Mariolatry developed by Romanists from the simple Bible story of Mary, and the scriptural proof they cite for each, and your reply thereto.

33. If we add to this Mariolatry its inventions concerning the See of Rome and Peter, what should this church be called?

34. Name the member of the Herod family mentioned in the New Testament, citing the passage in each case, and the relationship to Herod the Great, and which of these were descendents of Mariamne, the Maccabean princess?

35. How does the New Testament use the term “Caesar?”

36. How many Caesars ruled at Rome from the birth of Christ to the close of the New Testament canon?

37. Which three are named in the New Testament and where, and which other alluded to and where?

38. It is supposed that John lived to the close of the first century A.D. then what other Caesar must you add to the twelve?

VI

BEGINNINGS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE (CONTINUED)

Scriptures same as for chapter V.

MATTHEW’S Genealogy.

There are three notable peculiarities in Matthew’s genealogy. The first is, he commences with the rare phrase, “The book of the generation,” found nowhere else except in Gen 5:1-3 , concerning the first Adam. The uniqueness of this peculiarity and the correspondence between Mat 1:1 and Gen 5:1 , are of evident design. The proof of the design appears from Paul’s discussion of the matter. First, Paul says there are two Adams, the first a figure or type of the Second (Rom 5:14 ). The first was created; the Second was the only begotten Son. In Rom 5 Paul adds that as through one trespass of one man (the first Adam), sin, condemnation and death came upon all his descendants, so through one act of righteousness (on the cross) of one man, the Second Adam, justification unto eternal life came upon his descendants. The parallel or contrast between the two Adams he further discusses thus: “So also it is written, the first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Howbeit, that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”

The second peculiarity of Matthew’s genealogy consists in his division of the time from Abraham to Christ into three periods thus: From the patriarchy (or family rule in Abraham) , to the theocracy (or national rule at Sinai); second, From Abraham to David; from David to the captivity; from the captivity to Christ. Some have managed to find a difficulty in Matthew’s making three sets of fourteen with only forty-one names. But Matthew does not say that there were three sets of fourteen names, but three sets of fourteen generations. The generations here, as many times elsewhere, mean time periods. It is about equivalent to saying from Abraham to the earthly monarchy, first period; from the earthly monarchy to its downfall, second period; from the downfall of the earthly monarchy to the coming of the spiritual King, third period.

This period division suits Matthew’s plan as the book of the King. David, the typical king, is the central figure of three periods, which terminate in the antitypical or spiritual King. Matthew does not give every name, but according to the established method of Bible genealogies, he sometimes passes over a son to the grandson.

Another writer, with a different plan, might make four periods thus: From the patriarchy (or family rule in Abraham), to the theocracy (or national rule at Sinai); second, from the theocracy to the beginning of the monarchy; third, from the beginning of the monarchy to the hierarchy (or high priest rule); fourth, from the hierarchy to Jesus, the true Patnarches, Theos, basileus, hiereus.

Matthew’s third peculiarity is, that contrary to Jewish custom, he names four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba. As they are not named in the list of fourteen’s, they must be named in this connection for other reasons. Two facts suggest the probable reason for naming these women. First, three of the four at least were Gentiles, and quite possibly the fourth. Tamar and Rahab were Canaanites, Ruth was a Moabite, Bathsheba, the wife of a Hittite, was a granddaughter of Ahithophel, the Gilonite, and counsellor of David, who sided with Absalom, and afterward hanged himself. It is true that Giloh, his home city, was one of the mountain cities assigned to Judah at the conquest, but that does not prove that all of its inhabitants were Jews. Ahithophel does not act as a Jew, but with many other foreigners he accepted office under David. Eliam, otherwise Ammiel, his son, and father of Bathsheba, with Uriah, another foreigner, was one of David’s mighty men. Bathsheba herself does not act like a Jewess, for she married a Hittite, Uriah, the war comrade of her father. So she probably, as the other three women certainly, was a Gentile. The ending “ite,” as in Gilonite, usually, not always, indicates a Gentile tribe or nation.

The second fact is that only one of the four, Ruth the Moabite, was chaste in life. Tamar, in the garb of harlot, deceived her father-in-law, Judah. Rahab was an open harlot in Jericho, and Bathsheba was an adulteress. The fact of four such maternal ancestors seems to prophesy, in a way, that their coming illustrious Descendant would preach a gospel of mercy to the foreigner and to the fallen.

Some writers have wasted much energy in endeavoring to reconcile Luke’s genealogy with Matthew’s. There is not the slightest reason to attempt it.

Matthew gives our Lord’s legal descent through Joseph’. Luke gives his real descent through Mary. As both Joseph and Mary were descendants of Abraham and David, they will in part coincide and in part diverge. The extent of the coincidence or the divergence is immaterial.

THE ANNUNCIATION TO ZACHARIAS Luk 1:5-25

We have already seen that there were eight annunciations, as follows: To Zacharias, Mary, Joseph, Elisabeth, the shepherds, Simeon, Mary again by Simeon, and the magi. Some of these were by the angel Gabriel, some by the Holy Spirit and one by astronomical phenomenon. It is noteworthy that in every case the time, medium, place, and matter of the announcement are all adapted to the recipient and his or her circumstances. Just here we may note the contrast in the Bible between the offices of the angel Gabriel, and of the arch-angel Michael. Gabriel is sent always on missions of mercy; Michael always for the defense of God’s people, for war and vengeance on their enemies.

In the announcement to Zacharias the time is in the days of Herod the king, the scene is the Temple at Jerusalem, the place is the sanctuary or holy place, the hour is the time of the daily sacrifice. The circumstances of this announcement are: Zacharias, as priestly mediator, is burning the incense at the golden altar in the holy place, while the people outside are offering up the prayers represented by the incense. Twice every day, morning and evening, the people thus come to the Temple at the hour of prayer. (Compare Act 3:1 .) Being only a priest, Zacharias could not enter the most holy place; his ministrations stopped at the veil which hides the mercy seat, which is entered only once a year by the high priest on the great day of atonement (Lev 16 ). The offering of the incense was the highest honor that could come to a priest, and as it was determined by lot, it might not come more than once in a lifetime to the same man. The perpetuity of these mediatorial ministrations was secured by dividing the descendants of Aaron into twenty-four courses, with fixed dates for one course to relieve another. As we see from the text, Zacharias belonged to the course of Abijah, which was the eighth. This division of the priests into courses was established by David, as we learn from 1Ch 24 . Zacharias himself had a burden. His wife was barren, and both were now old. While burning the incense which represented the prayers of the people, he himself was praying for a son. The medium of the announcement to him was the angel Gabriel, who comes with an answer to his prayer while he is yet praying, as he had come on another great occasion to Daniel (Dan 9:20-21 ) The means was a vision. The matter was that not only would a son be born to him and Elisabeth, but his son would be a Nazirite, great in the sight of God, full of the Spirit from his mother’s womb, the forerunner of the Messiah, to make ready a people prepared for him according to prophecy, in the spirit and power of Elijah, turning many of the children of Israel to God and turning the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the disobedient to the justified. This, like the honor conferred on Mary, was unique, occurring only once in the world’s history.

Zacharias was filled with unbelief because of the natural difficulties on account of the impotency of his age and the barrenness of his wife. Why did he not consider the similar cases of Abraham and Sarah, of Isaac and Rebecca, and the case of Hannah, the mother of Samuel? Zacharias might have known from these illustrious incidents of the past history of his people, that the supernatural can overcome the natural. Because of his hesitation to believe the words of the angel, a sign was given unto him he should be dumb until the promise was fulfilled.

THE ANNUNCIATION TO MARY

The time is six months later than the annunciation to Zacharias.

The place is Mary’s home at Nazareth.

The medium is the same angel, Gabriel.

The matter is that she shall bear a Son, named Jesus, who shall also see the Son of the Most High, and who shall sit on the throne of his father David, ruling over an everlasting kingdom.

The explanation of the prodigy of a birth without a human sire is, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.” Because also, God, not man, is the sire, this offspring shall be “holy” in nature, and shall be called the Son of God. In all the human race this is “the Only begotten of the Father,” and hence the only one born in the world without hereditary depravity.

In this way only could be fulfilled the first gospel promise, “the seed of the woman [not of the man] shall bruise the serpent’s head.” Had he been the seed of the man he would have been born condemned on account of a depraved nature. He could not have saved himself, much less others. It is true “he was made under the law,” but not under its condemnation on his own account. Since he was born holy by nature, and never sinned in practice, and obeyed all its requirements, the law could not condemn him except as a legal substitute for real sinners. It is this that made his death under God’s law vicarious (Isa 53:4-12 ). So that one who rejects his birth of a virgin rejects the whole plan of salvation and the whole. Bible as the word of God. On this point there is not space for compromise as large as the point of a cambric needle, nor as broad as the edge of a razor.

When a man says “NO” to the question, “Do you believe our Lord was born of a virgin?” you need not ask him any other question whatever. And if he says, “Yes,” to this incarnation of God, the one supreme miracle, he need not quibble at any other in the gospel record.

This one conceded, the others come like a conqueror, and from necessity. Luk 1:34-35 is the crux, pivot, hinge, and citadel of all controversies on the joined issue, Natural vs. Supernatural; Atheism vs. Christianity. We have already called attention to the monstrous system of Mariology fruiting in Mariolatry. The base of it all is in the angel’s salutation to Mary: “Hail thou that art highly favored thou that hast favor with God.” It is a matter of translation. Shall we render “highly favored” (Greek, kecharitomene ) “mother of grace,” or “daughter of grace”? Does it mean “fountain of grace,” or “endued with grace,” i.e., grace conferred or found”? A Pope has said that Mary is the mother and fountain of all grace and our only hope of salvation.

MARY’S VISIT TO ELISABETH

Here we note the reason of Mary’s visit. The angel had informed her of Elisabeth’s condition. In all the world, Elisabeth was the only being to whom the modest Mary could confide her own extraordinary condition. She needed a woman’s sympathy and support. Never before and never again could two such women meet to confer concerning their unique motherhood. In all the history of the race only one woman could be the mother of the harbinger of our Lord, and only one be the mother of our Lord. The honors conferred on them were very high, and could never be repeated. As with the mothers, so with the sons.

They would forever stand apart from all other men each without a model, without a shadow, without a successor. The visit lasted three months. What the continuation of the intercommunion and holy confidences, what the mutual womanly sympathy and support in these three months we may infer from the beginning.

At the salutation of Mary, -two mighty tokens of recognition came upon Elisabeth. The babe in her womb, the babe who was to be full of the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, leaped for joy. Upon her also came the power of God and she herself was full of the Holy Spirit. She was thus prepared to give the greeting her visitor most needed to confirm her faith in the embarrassing circumstances of her novel situation: “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a fulfilment of the things which have been spoken unto her from the Lord.” After such greeting, the chastity and modesty of the virgin could no more be embarrassed, but upon her came a flame of inspiration that kindled that great song

THE MAGNIFICAT On this first Christian hymn, note:

Its correspondence with the Old Testament hymn of Hannah, the mother of Samuel (1Sa 2:1-10 ). Hannah’s song is the model of Mary’s. The correspondence is as remarkable in the circumstances as in the matter of the song. Israel under Eli had been brought very low. The barren Hannah prayed for a child and promised that she would dedicate him to Jehovah as long as he lived. Her illustrious son was the last of the judges and the first of the prophets. He reformed Israel and established the monarchy in David. What a solemn historic lesson, God’s preparation of the mothers of the good and the great, and the devil’s preparation of the mothers of the monsters of vice and cruelty! Compare the mothers of Augustine, Washington, Andrew Jackson, S. S. Prentiss, with the mother of Nero. To the question, Where should the education of a child commence, Oliver Wendell Holmes replied, “With his grandmother.” Think of the faith of Timothy, “which was first in his grandmother, Lois, and in his mother, Eunice “

Note the three divisions of Mary’s hymn: First as it relates to herself (Luk 1:46-49 ). Second, as it relates to God’s moral government of the world (Luk 1:50-53 ). Third, as it relates to Israel (Luk 1:54-55 ). The blessing on the individual Christian widens into a blessing on the people of God, and enlarges into a blessing on the world. How minute in application, how comprehensive in scope, and how correlated in all its parts, is God’s moral government of the universe!

Dr. Lyman Beecher, the greatest of all the Beechers, when asked, “How long were you in preparing your great sermon on ‘God’s Moral Government’ ?” replied, “Forty years.” While the hearers were astounded at the greatness of his production, he himself lamented the short time for preparation. Note the expression in Luk 1:50 , “and his mercy is unto generations and generations of them that fear him,” and mark its origin and import in the Old Testament, to wit: While he visits the iniquity of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generation, he visits his mercy to the thousandth generation on the children of them that fear him.

THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST Luk 1:57-66 Observe the naming of a Hebrew child at his circumcision. Hence pedobaptists, contending that baptism comes in the place of circumcision, name the child at its baptism and call it “christening.”

The great homiletical theme: “What then shall this child be?” (Luk 1:66 .)

The inspired song of the father. This is called THE BENEDICTUS from the first word, “blessed.” This is the second Christian hymn. It is divided into two distinct parts:

First, the ascription of praise to God for his continued mercy to his covenant people, Israel, according to promise and prophecy from Abraham’s day (Luk 1:68-75 ).

This promise was messianic “to raise up a horn of salvation in the house of David,” “horn” meaning a king or kingdom of power, as in Daniel’s apocalypses, and in Revelation. Dan 8:3 , the ram with two horns of unequal length, represented Persia united with Media. Dan 8:5-9 , the one “notable horn” of the he-goat was Alexander the Great, and the “four horns” his four successors. The “little horn” rising later was Antiochus Epiphanes. Dan 7:7-8 , the “ten horns” of this fourth beast were the ten kingdoms into which the fallen Roman empire was divided, and the “little horn” was the papacy.

So when Zacharias says, “Thou hast raised up a horn of salvation in the house of David,” it means the Messiah, David’s greater Son. One of the prophecies to which Zacharias refers 2Sa 7:12-13 , with which compare Isaiah II. It is evident, therefore, that Zacharias speaks his benediction on God because of spiritual messianic mercies.

The second part of the benediction (Luk 1:76-79 ) is spoken to his son, John, because of his relation to the Messiah of the first part. John was to be (1) the prophet of the Most High. (2) He was to go before the coming Messiah and prepare the way for him. (3) His ministry was to give the people “The knowledge of salvation in the remission of their sins.” We shall have much use later for this last item, when we devote a special chapter to John the Baptist, defining his place in the Christian system.

For the present we note that a true disciple of John was saved. He had “knowledge” of his salvation. This knowledge is experimental since it came through the remission of sins. We are not surprised, therefore, that his candidates for baptism “confessed their sins,” nor that his baptism was “of repentance unto remission of sins,” as Peter preached at Pentecost (Act 2:38 ) and was in harmony with our Lord’s great commission given in his gospel: “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations beginning at Jerusalem” (Luk 24:47 ).

“The Dayspring from on High” (Luk 1:78 ) is our Lord himself, the Sun of righteousness, in the dawn of his rising.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the first peculiarity of Matthew’s genealogy?

2. Give proof that this correspondence with Gen 5:1 was designed.

3. His second peculiarity?

4. Explain three sets of fourteen with only forty-one names.

5. How might another writer, with a different plan, divide the three from Abraham to Christ into four periods, and give their fulfilment in Christ in four Greek names?

6. Matthew’s third peculiarity, and account for it?

7. How do you reconcile Luke’s genealogy with Matthew’*?

8. Including Paul’s contributions, how should Luke’s genealogy com mence? Ans. Jesus himself, the Second Adam, who was the Lord from heaven (supposed son of Joseph) was the son of Heli.

9. Including a statement from Matthew himself, how should his genealogy commence? Ans. “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, called Immanuel (God with us), the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

10. How many annunciations, to whom, by whom or what, and how?

11. How are all these annunciations adapted to the receivers?

12. Contrast the respective missions of Gabriel and Michael.

13. In the annunciation to Zacharias, give time, scene, place, medium, means, and circumstances.

14. Where was the golden altar of incense, the brazen altar of sacrifice, what was their relation to each other, and what was the doctrine?

Ans. The brazen altar of sacrifice was in the outer court, the golden altar of incense in the holy place before the veil hiding the mercy seat in the most holy place. The relation was that expiatory sacrifice must precede offering up incense representing prayer based on expiation. First expiation of sin, then prayer. The incense was kindled by fire from the brazen altar. To kindle the incense with other fire was punished with death (see Lev 10:1-11 ; Num 3:4 ; Num 26:61 ; 1Ch 24:2 ). The doctrine is that prayer must be offered in the name of Jesus the expiatory victim.

15. Why should the people offer their prayers through the medium of a priest? Ans. Being sinners they must approach God through a mediator.

16. Who these mediators? Ans. The sons of Aaron.

17. How was perpetuity in mediation secured and by whom established?

18. Of which course of the twenty-four was Zacharias?

19. Why could not Zacharias offer the incense in the most holy place, who alone could, and when?

20. What prayer did Zacharias offer for himself, was it answered, and how?

21. Crucial test question: Is it the design of prayer to influence God or merely to reflexively influence the petitioner? (Before you answer read Mat 7:7-11 ; Luk 18:1-14 ; Joh 16:23-24 ; and the author’s interpretation of the trumpets of Rev 8:2-10:1 . See his book on Revelation, pp. 131-159.)

22. Give time, place, medium, means, and matter of the annunciation to Mary.

23. How does the angel explain a virgin’s giving birth to a child?

24. How does such a birth alone fulfill the first gospel promise?

25. How does it insure the child against hereditary depravity?

26. What three proofs must be made in order that Jesus escape condemnation on his own account? Ans. (1) He must be born holy holy in nature. (2) He must be free from actual sin in life. (3) He must perfectly obey all the law.

27. These proofs conceded, then if he yet be condemned and die, what follows? Ans. His death was vicarious a substitute for sinners (Isa 53:4-12 ).

28. What then is the effect of denying the virgin birth of our Lord?

29. What is the virtual relation of the incarnation to all other miracles?

30. How then must we regard Luk 1:34-35 ?

31. What is the base of all the Romanist Mariolatry?

32. Does the Greek word rendered “endued with grace,” convey the idea that Mary was the mother of grace or a daughter of grace in other words, that she is the fountain of all grace or the subject of grace conferred?

33. What has a Pope said of Mary?

34. Why did Mary visit Elisabeth?

35. How was it announced to Elisabeth that the mother of our Lord was present?

36. How naturally would Elisabeth’s inspired response comfort and confirm the modest virgin?

THE MAGNIFICAT

37. What is its Old Testament model?

38. What historic lesson suggested, and illustrate.

39. Point out the three divisions of Mary’s hymn.

40. Who preached a great sermon illustrating the second division?

41. What is the origin and meaning of “unto generations and generations” v.50?

BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

42. On what occasion did Hebrews name their male children and why do pedobaptists in imitation christen their children?

43. What great sermon theme here?

THE BENEDICTUS

44. Why song of Zacharias, so called?

45. What two divisions of the song?

46. What the nature of the first part and the relation of second thereto?

47. Meaning of “horn of salvation in the house of David”? Illustrate by “horn” from Daniel and cite two pertinent Old Testament messianic promises.

48. What three things in the second part of the Benedictua said of John the Baptist?

49. What does the last prove of a true disciple of John?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Ver. 23. Being, as was supposed ] But falsely: for Joseph was no more than his Pater politicus, as Postellus calleth him, his foster-father, reputed father.

Which was the son of Eli ] That is, his son-in-law. For Eli was Mary’s natural father; and it is Mary’s genealogy that is here described; but put upon Joseph, because the Hebrews reckon not their genealogies by women, but by men only. So Rth 1:11-13

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

23 38. ] GENEALOGY OF OUR LORD. Peculiar to Luke .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

23. ] Jesus was about thirty years old when He began (His ministry); not, ‘began to be about,’ &c., which is ungrammatical, , , Euthym [35] , so also Orig [36] , Bengel, Kuin., De Wette, Meyer, Wieseler: see also Act 1:1 .

[35] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116

[36] Origen, b. 185, d. 254

This . admits of considerable latitude, but only in one direction; viz. over thirty years. He could not well be under, seeing that this was the appointed age for the commencement of public service of God by the Levites: see Num 4:3 ; Num 4:23 ; Num 4:43 ; Num 4:47 .

If no other proof were in existence of the total independence of the present Gospels of Matthew and Luke , their genealogies would furnish what I conceive to be an undeniable one. Is it possible that either of these Evangelists could have set down his genealogy with that of the other before him? Would no remark have been made on their many and (on such a supposition ) unaccountable variations? It is quite beside the purpose of the present commentary to attempt to reconcile the two. It has never yet been accomplished; and every endeavour to do it has violated either ingenuousness or common sense. I shall, as in similar cases, only indicate the landmarks which may serve to guide us to all that is possible for us to discover concerning them. (1) The two genealogies are both the line of Joseph , and not of Mary . Whether Mary were an heiress or not, Luke’s words here preclude the idea of the genealogy being hers; for the descent of the Lord is transferred putatively to Joseph by the , before the genealogy begins; and it would be unnatural to suppose that the reckoning, which began with the real mother, would, after such transference, pass back through her to her father again, as it must do, if the genealogy be hers .

The attempts of many, and recently of Wieseler, to make it appear that the genealogy is that of Mary, reading ( . ) , ‘ the son ( as supposed of Joseph, but in reality ) of Heli , &c.’ are, as Meyer (Comm. in loc.) has shewn, quite unsuccessful: see Dr. Mill’s vindication of the Genealogies, p. 180 ff. for the history of this opinion. (2) Luke appears to have taken this genealogy entire from some authority before him, in which the expression as applied to Christ, was made good by tracing it up as here, through a regular ascent of progenitors till we come to Adam, who was, but here again inexactly, the son of God. This seems much more probable than that Luke should for his gentile readers have gone up to the origin of the human race instead of to Abraham. I cannot imagine any such purpose definitely present in the mind of the Evangelist.

This view is confirmed by the entirely insulated situation of the genealogy here, between Luk 3:23 and ch. Luk 4:1 . (3) The points of divergence between the genealogies are, in Matt. the father of Joseph is Jacob in Luke, Heli; this gives rise to different lists (except two common names, Zorobabel and Salathiel) up to David, where the accounts coincide again, and remain nearly identical up to Abraham, where Matt. ceases. (4) Here, as elsewhere, I believe that the accounts might be reconciled, or at all events good reason might be assigned for their differing, if we were in possession of data on which to proceed; but here as elsewhere, we are not . For who shall reproduce the endless combinations of elements of confusion, which might creep into a genealogy of this kind? Matthew’s, we know, is squared so as to form three tesseradecads, by the omission of several generations; how can we tell that some similar step unknown to us may not have been taken with the one before us? It was common among the Jews for the same man to bear different names; how do we know how often this may occur among the immediate progenitors of Joseph? The levirate marriage (of a brother with a brother’s wife to raise up seed, which then might be accounted to either husband) was common; how do we know how often this may have contributed to produce variations in the terms of a genealogy?

With all these elements of confusion, it is quite as presumptuous to pronounce the genealogies discrepant, as it is over-curious and uncritical to attempt to reconcile them. It may suffice us that they are inserted in the Gospels as authentic documents, and both of them merely to clear the Davidical descent of the putative father of the Lord. HIS OWN real Davidical descent does not depend on either of them , but must be solely derived through his mother . See much interesting investigation of the various solutions and traditions, in Dr. Mill’s tract referred to above; and in Lord A. Hervey’s work on the Genealogies of our Lord.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Luk 3:23-38 . The age of Jesus when He began His ministry, and His genealogy .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luk 3:23 . , etc., and He, Jesus, was about thirty years of age when He began . The evangelist’s aim obviously is to state the age at which Jesus commenced His public career. is used in a pregnant sense, beginning = making His beginning in that which is to be the theme of the history. There is a mental reference to in the preface, Luk 1:1 ; cf. Act 1:1 ; “all that Jesus began ( ) both to do and to teach”. , about, nearly, implying that the date is only approximate. It cannot be used as a fixed datum for chronological purposes, nor should any importance be attached to the number thirty as the proper age at which such a career should begin. That at that age the Levites began full service, Joseph stood before Pharaoh, and David began to reign are facts, but of no significance ( vide Farrar in C. G. T.). God’s prophets appear when they get the inward call, and that may come at any time, at twenty, thirty, or forty. Inspiration is not bound by rule, custom, or tradition.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 3:23-38

23When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Luk 3:23 “about thirty years of age” The exact dating of NT events is uncertain, but by comparing other NT texts, other secular histories, and modern archaeology, these dates are moving more and more in a narrow range. This text is not asserting thirty years old exactly, but in His thirties.

“being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph” Joseph is mentioned to fulfill Jewish legal requirements. The term “supposed” validates Luke’s understanding and affirmation of the virgin birth (as does Luk 1:34-35).

NASB”the son of Eli”

NKJV, NRSV,

TEV, NJB”the son of Heli”

The only difference in spelling is the rough breathing mark. The real question is, who was Joseph’s father? Luke’s genealogy has Eli/Heli and Matthew’s genealogy has Jacob.

There are several differences in the list of ancestors between Matthew and Luke. The best guess is that Luke records Mary’s lineage. And Matthew records Joseph’s lineage.

One of my favorite commentators, F. F. Bruce in Questions and Answers (p. 41) mentions another possibility for the differences between Matthew and Luke’s genealogies, Matthew records the royal lineage (i.e., the line of succession to the throne of Judah), while Luke records Joseph’s actual blood line (a part of the Davidic line, but not the family of royalty).

I guess my problem is that Luke’s comments about Joseph being the “supposed” father of Jesus (Luk 3:23) seem to demand that Mary must be of Davidic descent also for the prophecy of 2Sa 7:12-16 to be fulfilled.

Luk 3:32

NASB, NKJV,

TEV”Salmon”

NRSV, NJB”Sala”

There are several variants related to the name.

1. Sala MSS P4, *, (UBS4 gives it a B rating)

2. Salmn MSS cf8 i2, A, D, L (from Mat 1:4-5)

3. Salman some minuscules (from Rth 4:20)

4. Salma not in Greek MSS, but in 1Ch 2:11

Luk 3:33 This verse has many variants. For details see Bruce Metzger, Textual Commentary, pp. 207-208.

Luk 3:38 “the son of Adam” Matthew, written for Jews, takes the lineage back to Abraham. Luke, written for Gentiles, takes it back to Adam for the beginning of the human race. Luke even alludes to the special creation of humans (cf. Gen 2:7) made in God’s image (cf. Gen 1:26-27).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

began = when He began [His ministry? ] He was about thirty years of age.

as was supposed = as reckoned by law. Greek. nomizo = to lay down a thing as law; to hold by custom, or usage; to reckon correctly, take for granted. See Mat 20:10. Mat 2:44. Act 7:25; Act 14:19; Act 16:13, Act 16:27.

Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Mat 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Hell’s daughter (Mary), and be reckoned so according to law (Greek. nomizo). It does not say “begat” in the case of Hell.

which = who. So throughout verses: Luk 3:24-38.

the son of Heli. The genealogy of the ideal man begins from his father, and goes backward as far as may be. That of a king begins at the source of his dynasty and ends with himself. Compare that of Matthew with Luke, and see App-99.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

23-38.] GENEALOGY OF OUR LORD. Peculiar to Luke.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Luk 3:23. , and Jesus was Himself about thirty years, when beginning) The beginning meant in this passage is not that of His thirtieth year, which neither the cardinal number XXX. years, nor the particle about admit of, but the beginning of His doing and teaching in public, or His going in, Act 1:1; Act 1:21, [ , all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out.] 22 ( , Beginning from the baptism of John; where also the word beginning, as here, is put absolutely), ch. Luk 13:24 [When John had first preached before His coming the baptism of repentance]. This beginning Luke implies took place in the very act of baptism: with this comp. Mat 3:15. [Nevertheless that entrance on His office had various successive steps, of which the First was, the manifestation of the Christ to Israel which took place in His baptism, Luk 3:22; Luk 3:38; Joh 1:31; Joh 1:34; Mat 3:15. There followed Secondly, the beginning of His miracles, Joh 2:11. And Thirdly, the beginning of His doings in the house of His Father at Jerusalem, Joh 2:14 (with which comp. Mal 3:1). And also Fourthly, the beginning of His continued course of preaching in Galilee after the imprisonment of John, Mat 4:17; Luk 4:15; Act 10:37 : and indeed these steps followed one another in so brief a space of time, that one may count all of them as one, and combine (connect) that one step or beginning with the thirtieth year of the Saviour. They therefore are mistaken who suppose that John commenced the discharge of his office at an interval of six months, nay, even of a year or even more, before his baptism of Christ.-Harm., p. 71, 72.] Wherefore it is only incidentally in passing that he notices in this verse that beginning, but what he particularly marks is the age of Jesus:[36] and this too, in such a way as to mark the entrance of John on his ministry, and shortly after, the entrance of Jesus on His, which took place in one and the same year [Certainly it was not the object of Luke to mark exactly the entrance of the Forerunner, and to touch only incidentally upon the beginning that was made by our Lord Himself, but what he chiefly cared for recording was the latter. However the joining of John with Him is appropriate and seasonable; that he may not be supposed to have preceded Jesus by a longer interval.-Harm., p. 69]. Luke speaks becomingly; and whereas he had said, that the word of God came unto the Forerunner, Luk 3:2; with which comp. Joh 10:35 : he says that the Lord began, namely, not as a servant, but as the Son. The name, Jesus, is added, because a new scene and a new series of events are thrown open. The emphatic pronoun , Himself, put in the commencement, forms an antithesis to John: also John has his time of office noted by external marks, taken from Tiberius, etc., but the time of the beginning made by the Lord is defined by the years of the Lord Himself The Lord had now attained, after the remarkable advances and progress which marked His previous life, the regular and lawful age suited for His public ministry [Num 4:3].- , as He was duly accounted) The interpretation, As He was supposed [Engl. Vers.], is rather a weakening of the force: has certainly a stronger import than this: it denotes the feeling and wonted custom generally and also justly entertained and received: Act 16:13 [ , where prayer was wont to be made]. Furthermore Luke does not say, , , , but , , . Therefore this clause, , no less than that one to which it is immediately attached, , extends its force to the whole genealogical scale; and that too, in such a way as that the several steps are to be understood according to what the case and relation of each require and demand. Jesus was, as He was accounted, son of Joseph: for not merely the opinion of men regarded Him as the son of Joseph, but even Joseph rendered to Him all the offices of a father, although he had not begotten Jesus. He was, as He was accounted, Son of Heli; and He was so truly. For His mother Mary had Heli for her father: and so also as to Heli being son of Matthat and of the rest of the fathers. So in Luk 3:36 it was said, Sala was, as he was accounted, son of Cainan; whereas the Hellenistic Jews, following the LXX. interpretation reckoned him among the series of fathers after the flood. Therefore as far as concerns Joseph and Cainan, Luke, by the figure [See Append.] or anticipatory precaution, thus counteracts the popular opinion, as Franc. Junius long ago saw, with which comp. Ushers Chronol. Sacr., part i., ch. vi. f. 34: but in all the other parts of the genealogy he leaves all things inviolate and unaltered, inasmuch as agreeing with the Old Testament and the rest of the public documents and the truth itself, and as being acknowledged authentic by all, nay, he even stamps them with approval.- , Eli) He was father of Mary, and father-in-law of Joseph. See note, Mat 1:16. As to the article here so often repeated, it makes no matter whether you construe it with each antecedent proper name or with that which follows it. For in either construction Jesus is the son of each more remote father, the nearer father intervening. The LXX. interpretation render the Hebrew corresponding words, which are for the most part equivocal (capable of either construction), in either of the two ways: Ezr 7:1; Neh 11:4, etc. But it is more simple to take as cohering with each noun [proper name] following: in the way in which, Mat 1:1, Jesus Christ is said to be the Son () of David, SON () of Abraham. And although in the first step of the series, is the expression used without the article, yet subsequently the words are conveniently construed with each of the fathers immediately and directly [without the intervention of the names coming between], Comp. LXX. Gen 36:2.

[36] We may observe in this place, that the thirty years were not full years, and past, but wanting a little of completion: a fact which is proved in the Harm. of Beng. pp. 70, 71, and Ord. Temp. p. 222 (Ed. ii. p. 194). Comp. meine Beleuchtung, etc, p. 126, 127, etc.-E. B.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Luk 3:23-38

3. THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS

Luk 3:23-38

23-38 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach,-The meaning here is that Jesus was “about thirty years of age” when he began to teach. Luke had already specified the date of the beginning of John’s ministry, and now he states the age of Jesus when he began to teach. Soon after his baptism Jesus began to teach. Luke says that he was “about thirty years of age”; it is very common for Luke to use the word “about” with a specification of time. (Luk 1:56; Luk 9:28; Luk 22:59; Luk 23:44; Act 2:41; Act 4:4; Act 5:36; Act 10:3; Act 19:7.) “About thirty” is not here a round or general number, referring to any year within two or three years of thirty, but a specific designation of time, meaning a few months below or rather above thirty. The meaning appears to be that Jesus began his ministry when he was more than thirty and less than thirty-one. This agrees with what we know of the time of our Lord’s birth and baptism. Thirty was also the age when Levites entered upon their public services (Num 4:3; Num 4:47; 1 Chron. 23 3), and when scribes were accustomed to enter upon their office as teachers. The people would not have been disposed to recognize the authority of a teacher who had not attained that age. It was God’s purpose that the Messiah should not enter upon his public duties until he had arrived at the age of thirty.

being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, -It has always been regarded a very difficult task to harmonize the genealogical tables given by Matthew and Luke. Matthew’s design was to trace our Lord’s genealogy from Abraham down to his reputed father, Joseph, in order to furnish legal evidence to the Jews, that Jesus of Nazareth was, through his male ancestry, the lineal descendant of David and of Abraham. Luke traces his genealogy from Joseph, “as was supposed,” father of Jesus, on back through David and Abraham to Adam. The difficulty seems to lie in the fact that Luke diverges from Joseph, and pursues the lineal descent of Jesus through a different series to David. How is it that Joseph is in the one case declared to be the son of Jacob and in the other the son of Heli? Many attempts have been made to answer this question; many of the attempts are not satisfactory.

If Heli was Mary’s father, it is clear that Joseph was his son-in-law; the assumption that this relationship is here designated agrees with the facts of the case, or at least is not contradicted by them. The words “as was supposed,” although immediately referable to the following words, “the son of Joseph,” yet indicate that Luke had in mind the real parentage of Jesus, first as being the Son of God (Luk 1:35), and then of David, through the line of his maternal ancestry, which alone was true and real. It is as though Luke intended his readers mentally to supply in the next clause the words “but in reality (according to the flesh) the son of Heli.” If it be asked why Luke did not openly express this idea, by putting the name of Mary in place of Joseph, and writing, “which was the daughter of Heli,” the answer is furnished in the almost invariable usage of the ancients, especially the Jews, to reckon one’s genealogy through the paternal rather than the maternal line. But unless Luke, after his reference to our Lord’s supposed relationship to Joseph, passed over to his real ancestry, his genealogical table would be according to his own showing, one that was fictitious. The complete list of names back to Adam would rest on that of one who was only the “reputed” father of our Lord.

GENEALOGY OF CHRIST.

(Matthew and Luke Compared.)

ADAM

Adam to Abraham ac-Seth SethChrist to Adam accord.

cording to Genesis. Abra-EnoshEnos

ham to Christ accord-KenanCainaning to Luke.

ing to Matthew.MahalalelMahalaleel

JaredJared

EnochEnoch

MethuselahMethuselah

LamechLamech

Noah-Flood 2343 B.C.-Noah

Shem Shem

Arpachshad Arphaxad

Shelah Cainan

Eber Shelah

Peleg Eber

Reu Pele

Serug eu

Nahor Serug

Terah Nahor

ABRAHAM Terah

-Call of Abraham 1917 B.C.-ABRAHAM

Isaac Isaac

Jacob Jacob

Judah Judah

Perez Perez

Hezron Hezron

Ram Arni

AmminadabAmminadab

NahshonNahshon

SalmonSalmon

BoazBoaz

ObedObed

Jesse Jesse

DAVID

Building of the Temple-SolomonNathan-1000 years Before Christ

RehoboamMattatha

AbijahMenna

AsaMelea

JehoshaphatEliakim

Joram Jonam

Uzziah Joseph

Jotham Judas

Ahaz Symeon

Levi

Hezekiah Matthat

Jorim

Manasseh Eliezer

Jesus

Amon Er

Elmadam

JosiahCosam

Addi

JechoniahMelchi

Neri

ShealtielShealtiel

Temple destroyed 584 B.C.-ZERUBBABEL-Rebuilt by Zerubbabel 70 years

AbiudRhesaafterwards

Joanan

EliakimJoda

AzorSemein

Mattathias

SadocMaath

Naggai

Achim Esli

Nahum

Eliud Amos

Mattathias

EleazarJoseph

i

MatthanMelchi

Levi

JacobMatthat

Heli

JosephMary

CHRIST

It is natural to expect a genealogy somewhere in the gospels which would verify to the very letter the prediction that Christ was to be of the seed of David and of Abraham. The ancestry of Joseph, who was only his reputed father, would not answer this demand. It might be adduced in the way of legal proof to the Jew that Jesus had this mark of the Messiahship, but does not satisfy the conditions of the prophecy that he was to be a real descendant of David. The fact that Luke had this in mind is strengthened by the proof that he gives in tracing the true lineage of Jesus back to David and Abraham in his genealogical table. The fact that Luke carries his record back to Adam, who was declared to be the “Son of God,” shows clearly that it was designed to subserve a different purpose from that of Matthew. We are forced to the conclusion that Joseph was Heli’s son by the marriage of his daughter, and perhaps also by adoption, and that this genealogy of Luke was designed to furnish proof that our Lord “was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Rom 1:3.)

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The Genealogy Of Jesus — Luk 3:23-38

And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the sonof Eliakim, which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God- Luk 3:23-38.

We come now to consider the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who read their Bibles with any degree of care have often noticed the two genealogies of the Saviour- the one given in the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, introducing the New Testament record, and the other given here in the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke.

In the Old Testament we have a great many genealogical tables. In the Book of Genesis we have ten of them, and in other Old Testament books, notably First Chronicles, we have a great many. God had a purpose in preserving these lists. They may not seem very interesting to us. Oftentimes those of us who read our Bibles through regularly year by year, are tempted to pass them over as of no real spiritual value, and yet every little while we find some bright jewel flashing out in the midst of a chapter of the utmost unpronounceable names for some of us. We may be sure there was a very special purpose for preserving them, and it was this: God had said, The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the peoples be. Shiloh is a name for our Lord, Jesus Christ, Israels Messiah, the Prince of Peace, for Shiloh means peace. And God saw to it that the genealogical tables were preserved from Adam right on down through Abraham and on to David, and then from David to the coming into the world of our Lord Jesus Christ, in order that His title to the throne of David might be definitely-proven.

Now there are those who reject the Saviour as the Messiah, as many for instance in Israel do, who are still looking for a Messiah, and expect that sometime, perhaps very soon, perhaps in the more distant future, the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of Jehovahs Anointed into the world will have their fulfilment. If Jesus is not the Messiah there are no records left whereby it would be possible for them to trace out the genealogy of any one who might come in the future professing to be the true Son of David, who was destined to fulfil the promises made to the people of Israel and to rule over the Gentile world. There is no way now by which they could prove that any future Messiah was really the promised Saviour. The genealogies have all been lost. We have nothing beyond that which is given us here in the Bible. After the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ no other records were preserved that would enable anyone to trace out the genealogy of a future Son of David, if He were yet to arise. So God had a special reason for preserving the genealogical lists until His Son should actually be born into the world of a virgin, as predicted. After that there was no special reason to keep the records, so they were lost.

When you turn back to Matthews Gospel you find that Joseph is the son of a man named Jacob, not Heli; and from Heli back to David you have an altogether different line from what you get in Matthew. Surely here is a contradiction in the Bible! Surely this proves that, after all, the Bible cannot really be inspired of God, that it only consists of mere human records and it is not trustworthy! Thats the way men have reasoned. When we look into it carefully I think the mystery is cleared up. It is remarkable that God has preserved the key to the mystery in the last book on earth in which we might have expected to find it.

After the fall of Jerusalem, the Jews, in order to keep before their people the great teachings of the past, combined many things in a series of volumes called The Talmud, and today the orthodox Jews give far more attention to the study of the Talmud than they do to the Holy Scriptures themselves, though I was very glad to see in a Jewish magazine that some of the leading rabbis of this country are urging the Jewish soldiers to familiarize themselves with the Old Testament, to read it carefully. We rejoice in this because we know that if people read the Old Testament carefully and thoughtfully, many of them will be brought to the Light of the New Testament. The Old Testament points people to the Christ revealed in the New Testament. In the Jewish Talmud, written just a few years after the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, we are told hat Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary of Bethlehem, the daughter of Heli. That clears the mystery for us here.

Womens names are dropped out of this genealogy, but here we are told that Joseph was the son of Heli. This genealogy then is clearly the genealogy of Mary. Heli was the father of Mary, and Joseph by marrying Mary became the son of Heli. Married folks have two sets of fathers and mothers, do they not? You husbands speak of the brides parents as father and mother, and the bride speaks of the husbands parents as father and mother. So it was in the old days in Israel. When a man married a maiden of a certain family, her father and mother were recognized as his father and mother. So Joseph was actually the son of Jacob, but through marriage to Mary he was the son of Heli, and Mary herself was the daughter of the house of David.

The reason for giving us the two genealogies seems to be this: In the first chapter of Matthew we have the genealogy of the King. Matthew deals particularly with the Messiahship of Jesus. It was written to prove that He was the promised King of Israel. Joseph, who married Mary before the actual birth of Jesus and took her under his protecting care, was himself lineally descended from David, through King Solomon; and had conditions been right in Israel, Joseph possibly would have sat upon Davids throne. Instead of being Joseph, the carpenter, he would have been Joseph, the King of the Jews, but on account of the failure and sin that had come in, Davids family had been set to one side and, we find, were in very poor circumstances. Nevertheless, the royal line ran on as God saw it, and Joseph was the last of the royal line of David, and by marrying Mary, her son Jesus, being born after she entered into wedlock, became the legal heir to the throne of David. Thats why we have this genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew-to prove that Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of David.

The blood of Joseph did not run in the veins of Jesus, and according to the prophets, the Messiah Himself is to actually come through Davids line. He is to be the Son of the house of David. He is called Davids Son. Luke shows that this too was fulfilled, for we find as we go down through this genealogy that Heli, the father of Mary, came from a Davidic line, but the line through which she came was that of another son of David. Heli was a lineal descendant of Davids son, Nathan. So the blood of David flowed in Marys veins. Therefore, when our Lord Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary and born of her, he was actually a son of David. Do I say a son of David? He was the Son of David, the One who transcended every other, the One who is to confirm the sure mercies of David, and bring in everlasting blessing for the world- Great Davids greater Son!

So God has been very careful here to give us these two genealogical lists, to show us that the Lord Jesus is the rightful King. Through Joseph He is entitled to the throne, and then through Mary He is an actual Son of David. There are no mistakes in Gods books. We may often come across things in the Bible that we find difficult to understand, but we can be very sure of this: If we only had a little added information, if we only had fuller knowledge, Gods Word would always be shown to be right. There are no mistakes here. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2Ti 3:16-17).

You remember, back in the Book of Psalms, the Lord speaks of one particular Person that would be before Him, He said, It shall be said, This and that man was born in her, but the Lord shall count, when He writeth up the people, that this Man was born there, and this Man is Gods Messiah, the Saviour of Israel and of the world.

When we come to look at these two genealogical lists as given in Matthew and Luke we are at once struck by their differences, and many have supposed that the one is contradictory of the other. In Matthews Gospel we have a list beginning with Abraham and culminating in Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. We read, in the very opening of Matthews Gospel of the generations of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. Now, Matthew is the Jewish Gospel. Do not misunderstand me when I say that. I do not mean that it has no word of authority for the Gentiles, but I mean that it was written specifically for the Jewish people in order to prove to them that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. The Messiah was to be the Seed of Abraham, through whom all nations of the earth should be blessed, and He was to come in the direct line of David. So in this first chapter we have the generations of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham, and beginning with Abraham we go right on to Joseph. In verse Luk 3:16 we read: And Jacob (that is, Josephs father,) begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Then the Scriptures carefully show us that Mary was already with child by the Holy Spirit before Joseph gave her the protection of his name and took her to be his wife. This table in Matthews Gospel is definitely the genealogy of Joseph. It gives us the line from Abraham to Joseph. It is divided into three parts of fourteen generations each. Actually, when you go back to the Old Testament you find that there were quite a number of other names that came in along the way, but for certain reasons God dropped out various ones. He dropped out three kings of Judah because they came of the race of that vile woman Jezebel. For other reasons He dropped different ones out of the list, and He focuses our attention on three groups of fourteen each.

In the last instance, however, we seem at first sight to have only thirteen names. We read in verse Luk 3:17 : So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Notice again in the 16th verse: Jacob begat Joseph. Thats the twelfth generation. The husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus-thats the thirteenth generation. Who is called Christ-thats the fourteenth generation, for when He comes the second time He will be recognized as the Christ, the Messiah of Israel.

In this list given by Matthew we have four women referred to beside Mary herself. Ordinarily it was not customary for the Jews to include any reference to women in their genealogies, and the four women mentioned in this list are the very four which one who was jealous of the purity of the Hebrew strain would have left out. There was Tamar, whose history was one of the most wretched stories in the Bible. There was Rahab, the harlot of Jericho. There was Ruth, a Moabitess, outside the covenant of promise altogether. There was Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah, with whom David sinned so grievously. Why are these four womens names listed here? Surely to show us that where sin abounded grace did much more abound! All of these women, three of whom were great sinners, are found in the line from which our Saviour came. The other one was an outcast and a stranger of Moab, of whom the Lord had said, The Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord unto the tenth generation. This outcast is brought in to tell us that Jesus is not only the Messiah of Israel, but He is the Saviour of all sinners, of all nations who will put their trust in Him.

Now, when we turn over to the Gospel of Luke and we look at the genealogy there, we find it is quite different. Jesus began to be about thirty years of age. A Levite was thirty years of age when he began to serve. With our Lord Jesus it presents a new dispensation. He has now reached the age when He is about to enter upon His public ministry, being as was supposed, the son of Jeseph. Notice that Luke has been very careful in the previous chapters to show us that the Lord Jesus was not the son of Joseph, that He had no human father. On the other hand, he recognizes that people supposed that He was the son of Joseph. So he mentions that here. Joseph, he says, was the son of Heli.

I said earlier that Matthew wrote especially for the Jews; therefore the genealogy tracing Christ from Abraham down-from Abraham and Solomon to Joseph.

Luke wrote for the Gentile world, and he is concerned not simply in proving that Jesus is the Son of David, nor yet that He is the Seed of Abraham, with all that implies, but He also undertakes to show that He has become, in grace, one with the entire human race. He is the Son of Man, and so the genealogy is traced back not to David or Abraham, but to Adam himself, and from Adam to God.

The Scriptures speak of the first man-Adam. There have been those who have suggested that there might have been some pre-Adamic race in this world, but Gods Word says, The first man, Adam, was made a living soul. Adam was not born into the world. He was created. God fashioned his body of the dust of the earth. Do you really believe that? I believe it, and in any case-if it was not in the Bible-I would believe it because of the fact that when the body dies it goes back to dust again. God took from the dust of the earth and formed the body of a man, and then God breathed into that man the breath of the spirit of life, and man became a living soul. So Adam could be called, in this sense, the son of God. God is the Father of spirits, the God of the spirits of all flesh. There is a sense in which it is perfectly right to speak of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. There is another sense in which it is wrong. As created originally, Adam was the son of God. God was his Father by creation, but sin came in and man became alienated from God. All men are now born in sin. There is a universal brotherhood of man, but it is a brotherhood of sinners. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. When people are born again, when they are regenerated, then they enter into a new relationship. They are in a new sense the children of God. God is their Father, and they that believe are all brethren in Christ. The heathen had the conception of man coming originally from God. They said, you remember, in the poem that Paul quoted, on Mars hill-We are also His offspring. But oh, how man has dishonored God. How far away we have gotten from Him! Therefore the need of regeneration.

It is not for us today to pride ourselves on being children of God by natural birth and to claim God as our Father simply by creation. We are alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in us. In order now to be able to look up to heaven and call God our Father and in order to enter the new brotherhood that has been established by grace, we must be born again. How does that new birth take place? We are told of our Lord Jesus, He came unto His own, and His own received Him not; but as many as received Him to them gave He the power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on His name, which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. It is when we receive Christ, when we trust Him as our Saviour, that we become children of God. This does not mean that we are put back to the place that Adam was in before his fall-created in righteousness, created in innocence he fell into sin. In the old creation he was put to the test, and when he went down the whole creation went down with him. But now Christ, the last Adam, has met all the claims that God had against sinful men by His sacrifice on Calvary. He has been raised in triumph from the dead, and He has become the head of a new race, a new creation. Those who put their trust in Him are not put on trial as Adam was before he sinned, but they are now raised up together and seated together in Christ, in heavenly places. This is our glorious calling, and so for us there is no interest except an academic one in the matters of genealogy.

We are told in 1Ti 1:4 : Neither give heed to genealogies. We do not base anything on our earthly genealogy. We rest everything on the fact that we have been regenerated by the Word and Spirit of God. God has preserved the genealogies of His Son in order that we may have a clear and faithful record, and see His identification with David and Abraham, and with Adam as the Son of Man who has come to seek and to save that which was lost; as the Seed of Abraham, through whom all nations of the earth shall be blessed; as the Son of David, who shall yet sit upon the throne of His father David and reign in righteousness over all this universe when it has been turned back to God. How we can thank Him for the perfection of His Holy Word!

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

son of Heli

In Matthew, where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph, we are told Mat 1:16, that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense, then, could he be called in Luke “the son of Heli”? He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and of Heli. But in Luke it is not said that Heli begat Joseph, so that the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David. That he should in that case be called “son of Heli” (“son” is not in the Greek, but rightly supplied by the translators) would be in accord with Jewish usage.

(CF) 1Sa 24:16 The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary’s genealogy; and Joseph was “son of Heli” because espoused to Heli’s daughter. The genealogy in Luke is Mary’s, whose father, Heli, was descended from David.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

thirty: Gen 41:46, Num 4:3, Num 4:35, Num 4:39, Num 4:43, Num 4:47

being: Luk 4:22, Mat 13:55, Mar 6:3, Joh 6:42

which: The real father of Joseph was Jacob – Mat 1:16, but having married the daughter of Heli, and being perhaps adopted by him, he was called his son, and as such was entered in the public registers; Mary not being mentioned, because the Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. Hence it appears that Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree of Jesus Christ from Abraham, through whom the promises were given to the Jews, to David, and from David, through the line of Solomon, to Jacob the father of Joseph, the reputed or legal father of Christ; and that Luke, who wrote for the Gentiles, extends his genealogy upwards from Heli, the father of Mary, through the line of Nathan, to David, and from David to Abraham, and from Abraham to Adam, who was the immediate “son of God” by creation, and to whom the promise of the Saviour was given in behalf of himself and all his posterity. The two branches of descent from David, by Solomon and Nathan, being thus united in the persons of Mary and Joseph, Jesus the son of Mary re-united in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights, of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called “the Son of David.

Reciprocal: Gen 9:26 – the Lord 2Sa 5:4 – thirty Eze 1:1 – in the thirtieth Luk 2:4 – Joseph Rom 9:5 – of whom

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

3

As was supposed is from NOMIZO and is defined by Thayer, “to hold by custom or usage, own as a custom or usage.” The people in general did not understand the whole story of Jesus and Joseph, hence Luke inserts the clause in order to make his

record conform to the facts. Matthew (chapter 1) records the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham, down through David’s son Solomon until he gets to the same Joseph of our chapter, who was the son-in-law of Heli, the father of Mary. Then, beginning his genealogy of Jesus on his real mother’s side, Luke records it from her and her father Heli up on that side and joins the genealogy with that of Matthew when he gets to Nathan who was the full brother of Solomon. From there on Luke records the same genealogy as Matthew until he gets to Abraham, the plate where Matthew begins his, but Luke goes on up until he gets to Adam who was the first man. Before going any further here, the reader should carefully consult the comments on Mat 1:1-2.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

[Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.] “A parable. There was a certain orphaness brought up by a certain epitropus; or foster-father, an honest good man. At length he would place her in marriage. A scribe is called to write a bill of her dower: saith he to the girl, ‘What is thy name?’ ‘N.’ saith she. ‘What the name of thy father?’ She held her peace. To whom her foster-father, ‘Why dost thou not speak?’ ‘Because,’ saith she, ‘I know no other father but thee.’ He that educateth the child is called a father, not he that begets it.” Note that: Joseph, having been taught by the angel, and well satisfied in Mary, whom he had espoused, had owned Jesus for his son from his first birth; he had redeemed him as his first-born, had cherished him in his childhood, educated him in his youth: and therefore, no wonder if Joseph be called his father, and he was supposed to be his son.

II. Let us consider what might have been the judgment of the Sanhedrim in this case only from this story: “There came a certain woman to Jerusalem with a child, brought thither upon shoulders. She brought this child up; and he afterward had the carnal knowledge of her. They are brought before the Sanhedrim, and the Sanhedrim judged them to be stoned to death: not because he was undoubtedly her son, but because he had wholly adhered to her.”

Now suppose we that the blessed Jesus had come to the Sanhedrim upon the decease of Joseph, requiring his stock and goods as his heir; had he not, in all equity, obtained them as his son? Not that he was, beyond all doubt and question, his son, but that he had adhered to him wholly from his cradle, was brought up by him as his son, and always so acknowledged.

III. The doctors speak of one Joseph a carpenter: “Abnimus Gardieus asked the Rabbins of blessed memory, whence the earth was first created: they answer him, ‘There is no one skilled in these matters; but go thou to Joseph the architect.’ He went, and found him standing upon the rafters.”

It is equally obscure, who this Joseph the carpenter; and who this Abnimus was; although, as to this last, he is very frequently mentioned in those authors. They say, that “Abnimus and Balaam were two the greatest philosophers in the whole world.” Only this we read of him, That there was a very great familiarity betwixt him and R. Meir.

[Which was the son of Heli.] I. There is neither need nor reason, nor indeed any foundation at all, for us to frame I know not what marriages, and the taking of brothers’ wives, to remove a scruple in this place, wherein there is really no scruple in the least. For,

1. Joseph is not here called the son of Heli; but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader’s mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: “Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God.” For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph’s pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too. For when St. Luke, Luk 3:22; had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam ‘the son of God’ too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, “This is my Son,” was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman. And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother’s side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, “Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi”; and so of the rest…

2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the son of Heli (which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any great solecism, that his son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his own daughter. He was but his son by law, by the marriage of Joseph’s mother, not by nature and generation.

There is a discourse of a certain person who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected if under a mistake; He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar Ben Josah saith, that she hung by the glandules of her breasts. R. Josah Bar Haninah saith, that the great bar of hell’s gate hung at her ear.

If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far, at least, it agrees with our evangelist, that Mary was the daughter of Heli: and questionless all the rest is added in reproach of the blessed Virgin, the mother of our Lord: whom they often vilify elsewhere under the name of Sardah.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Luk 3:23. And Jesus himself, when he began, i.e., is ministry. This is the only grammatical view. The last verse told of how God had solemnly declared Him to be the Messiah, and the subsequent history tells of His ministry.

Was about thirty years of age. About, indefinite, but probably over that age. The Levites did not enter upon their public duties under that age, and it is improbable that He would deviate from the usage. The beginning of the ministry could not have been later than U. C. 782 (see Luk 3:1), and probably was two years earlier.

Being the son (at was supposed) of Joseph. The words, as was supposed, would be a curious introduction to a genealogy of Joseph. We therefore prefer to explain this, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, but in reality through his mother, of Heli, the father of Mary, and His nearest male ancestor. It is remarkable that, in the Talmud, Mary the mother of Jesus is called the daughter of Heli. From whence have Jewish scholars derived this information? If from the text of Luke, this proves that they understood it as we do; if they received it from tradition, it confirms the truth of the genealogical document Luke made use of. (Godet.) Others supply son in law between Joseph and Heli, but this is not in keeping with the regular succession of the passage, and involves the groundless assumption that Mary was an heiress, whose family was now represented by Joseph. The first view is open to fewest objections. An untrustworthy Jewish tradition says that Marys father was named Joachim. The Jews did not keep the genealogies of women, but this is the genealogy of Heli; and to call our Lord, the son of Heli (His nearest male ancestor, the names of women being passed over) accords with Jewish usage. The name of Mary would be unnecessary after Lukes account of the Nativity. Besides, our Lord was the son of David, and that could be true, according to the gospel history, only through His mother. It implied everywhere in the Old Testament that the Messiah should be an actual descendant of David, and in the New it is taken for granted that Jesus fulfilled this promise. It is precisely in this Gospel, that we would look for her genealogy, since she has been the principal figure thus far. The view that this is the genealogy of Joseph is attended with insuperable difficulties. How could Joseph be the son of Jacob (Matthew) and the son of Heli (Luke)? A solution by the theory of a Levirate marriage, is unsatisfactory; two such must be assumed; and even then the difficulty is not met, for the offspring of a Levirate marriage must be recorded as that of the older deceased brother, and two distinct genealogies would not be given. On such a point a mistake is scarcely conceivable.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

At thirty years of age, the priests under the law entered upon their public office; accordingly Christ stays the full time prescribed by the law, before he undertakes his public ministry, and he gives the reason for it. That he might fulfil all righteousness. Mat 3:15 That is, the righteousness of the ceremonial law, which required persons to be of that age, before they entered upon that office; and also enjoined them to be baptized or washed in water, when they undertook their office. See Exo 29:4

Learn hence, that whatever the law required in order to perfect righteousness, that Christ fulfilled in most absolute perfection, both in his own person, and also in the name of all believers.

Observe farther, the title given to Joseph here: he is called the supposed father of Christ. Joseph was not his natural father, though so supposed by the Jews; but he was his legal father, being married to the Virgin when our Saviour was born; and he was his nursing father, that took care of him, and provided for him, though Christ sometimes showed both his parents, that, if he pleased, he could live without any dependence upon their care. See Luk 2:49

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Luk 3:23-35. And Jesus Johns beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviours by the years of his own life, as a more august era: began to be about thirty years of age The Greek here, , should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. I can recollect no sufficient authority, says Dr. Doddridge, to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been , &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it. The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthews and Lukes gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses , Luk 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lords subjection to his parents by the word , Luk 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to Johns baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christs genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christs miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman. Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Third Narrative: The Genealogy of Jesus, Luk 3:23-38.

In the first Gospel the genealogy of Jesus is placed at the very beginning of the narrative. This is easily explained. From the point of view indicated by theocratic forms, scriptural antecedents, and, if we may so express it, Jewish etiquette, the Messiah was to be a descendant of David and Abraham (Mat 1:1). This relationship was the sine qu non of His civil status. It is not so easy to understand why Luke thought he must give the genealogy of Jesus, and why he places it just here, between the baptism and the temptation. Perhaps, if we bear in mind the obscurity in which, to the Greeks, the origin of mankind was hidden, and the absurd fables current among them about autochthonic nations, we shall see how interesting any document would be to them, which, following the track of actual names, went back to the first father of the race. Luke’s intention would thus be very nearly the same as Paul’s when he said at Athens (Act 17:26), God hath made of one blood the whole human race. But from a strictly religious point of view, this genealogy possessed still greater importance. In carrying it back not only, as Matthew does, as far as Abraham, but even to Adam, Luke lays the foundation of that universality of redemption which is to be one of the characteristic features of the picture he is about to draw. In this way he places in close and indissoluble connection the imperfect image of God created in Adam, which reappears in every man, and His perfect image realized in Christ, which is to be reproduced in all men.

But why does Luke place this document here? Holtzmann replies (p. 112), because hitherto there had been no suitable place for it. This answer harmonizes very well with the process of fabrication, by means of which this scholar thinks the composition of the Syn. may be accounted for. But why did this particular place appear more suitable to the evangelist than another? This is what has to be explained. Luke himself puts us on the right track by the first words of Luk 3:23. By giving prominence to the person of Jesus in the use of the pronoun , He, which opens the sentence, by the addition of the name Jesus, and above all, by the verb which separates this pronoun and this substantive, and sets them both in relief (and Himself was, He, Jesus…), Luke indicates this as the moment when Jesus enters personally on the scene to commence His proper work. With the baptism, the obscurity in which He has lived until now passes away; He now appears detached from the circle of persons who have hitherto surrounded Him and acted as His patrons; namely, His parents and the forerunner. He henceforth becomes the He, the principal personage of the narrative. This is the moment which very properly appears to the author most suitable for giving His genealogy. The genealogy of Moses, in the Exodus, is placed in the same way, not at the opening of his biography, but at the moment when he appears on the stage of history, when he presents himself before Pharaoh (Luk 6:14 et seq.).

In crossing the threshold of this new era, the sacred historian casts a general glance over the period which thus reaches its close, and sums it up in this document, which might be called the mortuary register of the earlier humanity.

There is further a difference of form between the two genealogies. Matthew comes down, whilst Luke ascends the stream of generations. Perhaps this difference of method depends on the difference of religious position between the Jews and the Greeks. The Jew, finding the basis of his thought in a revelation, proceeds synthetically from cause to effect; the Greek, possessing nothing beyond the fact, analyzes it, that he may proceed from effect to cause. But this difference depends more probably still on another circumstance. Every official genealogical register must present the descending form; for individuals are only inscribed in it as they are born. The ascending form of genealogy can only be that of a private instrument, drawn up from the public document with a view to the particular individual whose name serves as the starting-point of the whole list. It follows that in Matthew we have the exact copy of the official register; while Luke gives us a document extracted from the public records, and compiled with a view to the person with whom the genealogy commences.

Ver. 23 is at once the transition and preamble; Luk 3:24-38 contain the genealogy itself. 1 st. Luk 3:23.

The exact translation of this important and difficult verse is this: And Himself, Jesus, was [aged] about thirty years when He began [or, if the term may be employed here, made His dbut], being a son, as was believed, of Joseph.

The expression to begin can only refer in this passage to the entrance of Jesus upon His Messianic work. This idea is in direct connection with the context (baptism, temptation), and particularly with the first words of the verse. Having fully become He, Jesus begins. We must take care not to connect and as parts of a single verb (was beginning for began). For has a complement of its own, of thirty years; it therefore signifies here, was of the age of. Some have tried to make depend on , He began His thirtieth year; and it is perhaps owing to this interpretation that we find this participle placed first in the Alex. But for this sense, would have been necessary; and the limitation about cannot have reference to the commencement of the year.(On the agreement of this chronological fact with the date, Luk 3:1, see p. 166.)

We have already observed that the age of thirty is that of the greatest physical and psychical strength, the of natural life. It was the age at which, among the Jews, the Levites entered upon their duties (Num 4:3; Num 4:23), and when, among the Greeks, a young man began to take part in public affairs.

The participle , being, makes a strange impression, not only because it is purely and simply in juxtaposition with (beginning, being), and depends on , the very verb of which it is a part, but still more because its connection with the latter verb cannot be explained by any of the three logical relations by which a participle is connected with a completed verb, when, because, or although. What relation of simultaneousness, causality, or opposition, could there be between the filiation of Jesus and the age at which He had arrived? This incoherence is a clear indication that the evangelist has with some difficulty effected a soldering of two documents,that which he has hitherto followed, and which for the moment he abandons, and the genealogical register which he wishes to insert in this place.

With the participle , being, there begins then a transition which we owe to the pen of Luke. How far does it extend, and where does the genealogical register properly begin? This is a nice and important question. We have only a hint for its solution. This is the absence of the article , the, before the name Joseph. This word is found before all the names belonging to the genealogical series. In the genealogy of Matthew, the article is put in the same way before each proper name, which clearly proves that it was the ordinary form in vogue in this kind of document. The two MSS. H. and I. read, it is true, before . But since these unimportant MSS. are unsupported by their ally the Vatican, to which formerly the same reading was erroneously attributed (see Tischend. 8th ed.), this various reading has no longer any weight. On the one hand, it is easily explained as an imitation of the following terms of the genealogy; on the other, we could not conceive of the suppression of the article in all the most ancient documents, if it had originally belonged to the text. This want of the article puts the name Joseph outside the genealogical series properly so called, and assigns to it a peculiar position. We must conclude from it1 st. That this name belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke 2 d. That the genealogical document which he consulted began with the name of Heli; 3 d. And consequently, that this piece was not originally the genealogy of Jesus or of Joseph, but of Heli.

There is a second question to determine: whether we should prefer the Alexandrine reading, being a son, as it was believed, of Joseph; or the Byzantine text, being, us it was believed, a son of Joseph. There is internal probability that the copyists would rather have been drawn to connect the words son and Joseph, in order to restore the phrase frequently employed in the Gospels, son of Joseph, than to separate them. This observation appears to decide for the Alexandrine text.

It is of importance next to determine the exact meaning of the which precedes each of the genealogical names. Thus far we have supposed this word to be the article, and this is the natural interpretation. But we might give it the force of a pronoun, he, the one, and translate: Joseph, he [the son] of Heli; Heli, he [the son] of Matthat, etc. Thus understood, the would each time be in apposition with the preceding name, and would have the following name for its complement. But this explanation cannot be maintained; for1 st. It cannot be applied to the last term , in which is evidently an article; 2 d. The recurrence of in the genealogy of Matthew proves that the article belonged to the terminology of these documents; 3 d. The thus understood would imply an intention to distinguish the individual to which it refers from some other person bearing the same name, but not having the same father, Heli, the one of Matthat, [and not one of another father]; which could not be the design of the genealogist. The is therefore undoubtedly an article. But, admitting this, we may still hesitate between two interpretations, we may subordinate each genitive to the preceding name, as is ordinarily done: Heli, son of Matthat, [which Matthat was a son] of Levi, [which Levi was a son] of…; or, as Wieseler proposed, we may co-ordinate all the genitives, so as to make each of them depend directly on the word son placed at the head of the entire series: Jesus, son of Heli; [Jesus, son] of Matthat… So that, according to the Jewish usage, which permitted a grandson to be called the son of his grandfather, Jesus would be called the son of each of His ancestors in succession. This interpretation would not be, in itself, so forced as Bleek maintains. But nevertheless the former is preferable, for it alone really expresses the notion of a succession of generations, which is the ruling idea of every genealogy. The genitives in Luke merely supply the place of , as repeated in the original document, of which Matthew gives us the text.

Besides, we do not think that it would be necessary to supply, between each link in the genealogical chain, the term , son of, as an apposition of the preceding name. Each genitive is also the complement of the name which precedes it. The idea of filiation resides in the grammatical case. We have the genitive here in its essence.

There remains, lastly, the still more important question: On what does the genitive (of Heli) precisely depend? On the name which immediately precedes it? This would be in conformity with the analogy of all the other genitives, which, as we have just proved, depend each on the preceding name. Thus Heli would have been the father of Joseph, and the genealogy of Luke, as well as that of Matthew, would be the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph. In that case we should have to explain how the two documents could be so totally different. But this view is incompatible with the absence of the article before Joseph. If the name had been intended by Luke to be the basis of the entire genealogical series, it would have been fixed and determined by the article with much greater reason certainly than the names that follow. The genitive , of Heli, depends therefore not on Joseph, but on the word son. This construction is not possible, it is true, with the received reading, in which the words son and Joseph form a single phrase, son of Joseph. The word son cannot be separated from the word it immediately governs: Joseph, to receive a second and more distant complement. With this reading, the only thing left to us is to make depend on the participle : Jesus…being…[born] of Heli. An antithesis might be found between the real fact (, being) and the apparent (, as was thought): being, as was thought, a son of Joseph, [in reality] born of Heli. But can the word signify both to be (in the sense of the verb substantive) and to be born of? Everything becomes much more simple if we assume the Alex. reading, which on other grounds has already appeared to us the more probable. The word son, separated as it is from its first complement, of Joseph, by the words as was thought, may very well have a second, of Heli. The first is only noticed in passing, and in order to be denied in the very mention of it: Son, as was thought, of Joseph. The official information being thus disavowed, Luke, by means of the second complement, substitutes for it the truth, of Heli; and this name he distinguishes, by means of the article, as the first link of the genealogical chain properly so called. The text, therefore, to express the author’s meaning clearly, should be written thus: being a sonas was thought, of Josephof Heli, of Matthat… Bleek has put the words into a parenthesis, and rightly; only he should have added to them the word .

This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: Genus matris non vocatur genus (Baba bathra, 110, a). In lieu of this, it is not uncommon to find in the O. T. the grandson called the son of his grandfather.

If there were any circumstances in which this usage was applicable, would not the wholly exceptional case with which Luke was dealing be such? There was only one way of filling up the hiatus, resulting from the absence of the father, between the grandfather and his grandson; namely, to introduce the name of the presumed father, noting at the same time the falseness of this opinion. It is remarkable that, in the Talmud, Mary the mother of Jesus is called the daughter of Heli (Chagig. 77. 4). From whence have Jewish scholars derived this information? If from the text of Luke, this proves that they understood it as we do; if they received it from tradition, it confirms the truth of the genealogical document Luke made use of.

If this explanation be rejected, it must be admitted that Luke as well as Matthew gives us the genealogy of Joseph. The difficulties to be encountered in this direction are these:1. The absence of before the name , and before this name alone, is not accounted for.2. We are met by an all but insoluble contradiction between the two evangelists,the one indicating Heli as the father of Joseph, the other Jacob,which leads to two series of names wholly different. We might, it is true, have recourse to the following hypothesis proposed by Julius Africanus (third century): Heli and Jacob were brothers; one of them died without children; the survivor, in conformity with the law, married his widow, and the first-born of this union, Joseph, was registered as a son of the deceased. In this way Joseph would have had two fathers,one real, the other legal. But this hypothesis is not sufficient; a second is needed. For if Heli and Jacob were brothers, they must have had the same father; and the two genealogies should coincide on reaching the name of the grandfather of Joseph, which is not the case. It is supposed, therefore, that they were brothers on the mother’s side only, which explains both the difference of the fathers and that of the entire genealogies. This superstructure of coincidences is not absolutely inadmissible, but no one can think it natural. We should be reduced, then, to admit an absolute contradiction between the two evangelists. But can it be supposed that both or either of them could have been capable of fabricating such a register, heaping name upon name quite arbitrarily, and at the mere pleasure of their caprice? Who could credit a proceeding so absurd, and that in two genealogies, one of which sets out from Abraham, the venerated ancestor of the people, the other terminating in God Himself! All these names must have been taken from documents. But is it possible in this case to admit, in one or both of these writers, an entire mistake?3. It is not only with Matthew that Luke would be in contradiction, but with himself. He admits the miraculous birth (chap. 1 and 2). It is conceivable that, from the theocratic point of view which Matthew takes, a certain interest might, even on this supposition, be assigned to the genealogy of Joseph, as the adoptive, legal father of the Messiah. But that Luke, to whom this official point of view was altogether foreign, should have handed down with so much care this series of seventy-three names, after having severed the chain at the first link, as he does by the remark, as it was thought; that, further, he should give himself the trouble, after this, to develope the entire series, and finish at last with God Himself;this is a moral impossibility. What sensible man, Gfrrer has very properly asked (with a different design, it is true), could take pleasure in drawing up such a list of ancestors, after having declared that the relationship is destitute of all reality? Modern criticism has, last of all, been driven to the following hypothesis:

Matthew and Luke each found a genealogy of Jesus written from the Jewish-Christian standpoint: they were both different genealogies of Joseph; for amongst this party (which was no other than the primitive Church) he was without hesitation regarded as the father of Jesus. But at the time when these documents were published by the evangelists another theory already prevailed, that of the miraculous birth, which these two authors embraced. They published, therefore, their documents, adapting them as best they could to the new belief, just as Luke does by his as it was thought, and Matthew by the periphrasis Luk 1:16.

But, 1. We have pointed out that the opinion which attributes to the primitive apostolic Church the idea of the natural birth of Jesus rests upon no solid foundation. 2. A writer who speaks of apostolic tradition as Luke speaks of it, Luk 1:2, could not have knowingly put himself in opposition to it on a point of this importance. 3. If we advance no claim on behalf of the sacred writers to inspiration, we protest against whatever impeaches their good sense. The first evangelist, M. Reville maintains, did not even perceive the incompatibility between the theory of the miraculous birth and his genealogical document. As to Luke, this same author says: The third perceives very clearly the contradiction; nevertheless he writes his history as if it did not exist. In other words, Matthew is more foolish than false, Luke more false than foolish. Criticism which is obliged to support itself by attributing to the sacred writers absurd methods, such as are found in no sensible writer, is self-condemned. There is not the smallest proof that the documents used by Matthew and Luke were of Jewish-Christian origin. On the contrary, it is very probable, since the facts all go to establish it, that they were simply copies of the official registers of the public tables (see below), referring, one to Joseph, the other to Heli, both consequently of Jewish origin. So far from there being any ground to regard them as monuments of a Christian conception differing from that of the evangelists, it is these authors, or those who transmitted them to them, who set upon them for the first time the Christian seal, by adding to them the part which refers to Jesus. 4. Lastly, after all, these two series of completely different names have in any case to be explained. Are they fictitious? Who can maintain this, when writers so evidently in earnest are concerned? Are they founded upon documents? How then could they differ so completely? This difficulty becomes greater still if it is maintained that these two different genealogies of Joseph proceed from the same ecclesiastical quarterfrom the Jewish-Christian party.

But have we sufficient proofs of the existence of genealogical registers among the Jews at this epoch? We have already referred to the public tables ( ) from which Josephus had extracted his own genealogy: I relate my genealogy as I find it recorded in the public tables. The same Josephus, in his work, Contra Apion (Luk 1:7), says: From all the countries in which our priests are scattered abroad, they send to Jerusalem (in order to have their children entered) documents containing the names of their parents and ancestors, and countersigned by witnesses. What was done for the priestly families could not fail to have been done with regard to the royal family, from which it was known that the Messiah was to spring. The same conclusion results also from the following facts. The famous Rabbi Hillel, who lived in the time of Jesus, succeeded in proving, by means of a genealogical table in existence at Jerusalem, that, although a poor man, he was a descendant of David. The line of descent in the different branches of the royal family was so well known, that even at the end of the first century of the Church, the grandsons of Jude, the brother of the Lord, had to appear at Rome as descendants of David, and undergo examination in the presence of Domitian. According to these facts, the existence of two genealogical documents relating, one to Joseph, the other to Heli, and preserved in their respective families, offers absolutely nothing at all improbable.

In comparing the two narratives of the infancy, we have been led to assign them to two different sources: that of Matthew appeared to us to emanate from the relations of Joseph; that of Luke from the circle of which Mary was the centre (p. 163). Something similar occurs again in regard to the two genealogies. That of Matthew, which has Joseph in view, must have proceeded from his family; that which Luke has transmitted to us, being that of Mary’s father, must have come from this latter quarter. But it is manifest that this difference of production is connected with a moral cause. The meaning of one of the genealogies is certainly hereditary, Messianic; the meaning of the other is universal redemption. Hence, in the one, the relationship is through Joseph, the representative of the civil, national, theocratic side; in the other, the descent is through Mary, the organ of the real human relationship.

Was not Jesus at once to appear and to be the son of David?to appear such, through him whom the people regarded as His father; to be such, through her from whom He really derived His human existence? The two affiliations answered to these two requirements.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

IV.

GENEALOGY ACCORDING TO LUKE.

cLUKE III. 23-38.

c23 And Jesus himself [Luke has been speaking about John the Baptist, he now turns to speak of Jesus himself], when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age [the age when a Levite entered upon God’s service– Num 4:46, Num 4:47], being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son [this may mean that Jesus was grandson of Heli, or that Joseph was counted as a son of Heli because he was his son-in-law] of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri [Matthew calls Shealtiel the son of Jechoniah. [7] Jechoniah may have been the natural, and Neri the legal, father of Shealtiel– Deu 25:5-10, Mat 22:24], 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosan, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon [he was probably one of the two spies who were sent to Jericho by Joshua– Jos 2:1-24], the son of Nahshon [he was prince of the tribe of Judah during the wanderings in the wilderness– Num 1:4-7, Num 10:14], 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber [it is thought that the name “Hebrew” comes from this man– Gen 10:21, Gen 40:15, Exo 2:6], the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah [the hero of the flood], the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah [who lived to be the oldest man on record, dying when 969 years old], the son of Enoch [whom God translated], the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth [the third son of Adam], the son of Adam, the son of God [Adam was the son of God, being not merely a creature, but a creature made in God’s image and likeness– Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27.] [8]

[FFG 7-8]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Luk 3:23-38. The Genealogy of Jesus (cf. Mat 1:1-17*).The words as was supposed are perhaps from a later hand than that which first compiled the pedigree. Jesus here descends from David, not through Solomon (Matthew 16 f.) but through Nathan. There are other differences; the most noteworthy is that Lk. with characteristic universality goes back beyond Abraham to Adam, the son of God. Jesus is the second Adam (Rom 5:14, 1Co 15:22; 1Co 15:45).

Luk 3:23. when he began: the words to teach are not in the Gr. AV is wrong in connecting the verb with the age of Jesus. We must follow RVs interpretation, or suppose that something like to be the Son of God (cf. Luk 3:22*) has been omitted on doctrinal grounds.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

3:23 {6} And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,

(6) Christ’s lineage, according to the flesh, is traced back even to Adam, and so to God, that it might appear that it was only he whom God promised to Abraham and David, and appointed from everlasting to his Church, which is composed of all sorts of men.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

C. The genealogy of Jesus 3:23-38 (cf. Matthew 1:1-17)

Why did Luke place his genealogy of Jesus at this point in his Gospel? Probably he did so because this was the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Matthew recorded Jesus’ genealogy to show that He had a legitimate right by birth to occupy the Davidic throne. Consequently he placed his genealogy at the very beginning of his Gospel. Luke wanted to show the ancestry of Jesus, who now began His ministry, as the authenticated Son of God.

There are several other distinct differences between the two genealogies. They proceed in different directions, Matthew’s starting with Abraham and ending in Jesus and Luke’s beginning with Jesus and working back to Adam and God. Matthew’s list stressed Jesus’ place in the Jewish race by recording Jesus’ ancestry back to Abraham, the father of the Jews. Luke’s perspective is broader tracing Jesus all the way back to Adam and showing Him to be a member of the human race. Matthew grouped his names into three groups of 14 names each whereas Luke simply listed 78 ancestors. It is possible to divide Luke’s list into 11 groups of 7 names each plus God’s name. [Note: E.g., Marshall, The Gospel . . ., p. 160.] But Luke did not draw attention to his divisions as Matthew did. Matthew recorded Jesus’ descent from Joseph through Solomon, but Luke traced other ancestors from Joseph to David’s other son Nathan. Matthew apparently gives Jesus legal line of descent from David naming the heirs to his throne, but Luke gave another branch of David’s family tree that seems to be Joseph’s bloodline. [Note: Ibid., p. 158; Machen, pp. 202-9, 229-32.] Matthew mentioned several women in his genealogy, but Luke mentioned none. Finally Luke’s list is considerably longer than Matthew’s.

"That the genealogy is recorded at all shows Him to be a real man, not a demi-god like those in Greek and Roman mythology. That it goes back to David points to an essential element in His messianic qualifications. That it goes back to Adam brings out His kinship not only with Israel but with the whole human race. That it goes back to God relates Him to the Creator of all. He was the Son of God." [Note: Morris, p. 101.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Luke probably mentioned the round number "30" to describe Jesus’ age when He launched His ministry because many significant Old Testament characters began their service of God when they were 30 (cf. Gen 41:46; 2Sa 5:4; Eze 1:1). This included Israel’s priests (Numbers 4). Evidently Jesus was 32 years old when He began His ministry. [Note: Hoehner, pp. 37-38.] Luke also clarified that Jesus was not the physical son of Joseph. People only supposed that He was.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)